Impact of the Geographic Resolution on Population Synthesis Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microsimulation-based models, increasingly used in the transportation domain, require richer datasets than traditional models. Precisely enumerated population data being usually unavailable, transportation researchers generate their statistical equivalent through population synthesis. While various synthesizers are proposed to optimize the accuracy of synthetic populations, no insight is given regarding the impact of the geographic resolution on population synthesis quality. In this paper, we synthesize populations for the Census Metropolitan Areas of Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver at various geographic resolutions using the enhanced iterative proportional updating algorithm. We define accuracy (representativeness of the sociodemographic characteristics of the entire population) and precision (representativeness of the real population’s spatial heterogeneity) as metrics of synthetic populations’ quality and measure the impact of the reference resolution on them. Moreover, we assess census targets’ harmonization and double geographic resolution control as means of quality improvement. We find that with a less aggregate reference resolution, the gain in precision is higher than the loss in accuracy. The most disaggregate resolution is thus found to be the best choice. Harmonization proves to further optimize synthetic populations while double control harms their quality. Hence, synthesizing at the Dissemination Area resolution using harmonized census targets is found to yield optimal synthetic populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".