MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W402747145

Strategies To Relieve Subway Crowding: Case Study From The Toronto Context

2015· article· en· W402747145 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Becca Nagorsky, Jeffrey M. Casello, Amer Shalaby

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 94th Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntownTrainContext (archaeology)Transport engineeringPublic transportService (business)BusinessTransit (satellite)TelecommunicationsComputer scienceEngineeringGeographyMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Toronto region is a growing area, but is increasingly constrained by underinvestment in the rapid transit network. The lack of capacity in the transit network is felt most strongly along the Yonge Subway line that runs along the central backbone of the city and serves as the primary transit artery into the downtown. The subway is overcrowded today and, despite improvements coming on board in the near term including new signalling and higher-capacity trains, demand is predicted to continue exceeding capacity in the future. A number of strategies have been developed to address subway congestion, several of which are potentially relevant for cross- jurisdictional application. The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) has developed a proposal for a new rapid transit line that will create a connection between two existing perpendicular subway lines, increasing capacity into Toronto’s downtown core. Other proposed options include significant upgrades of Toronto’s commuter rail network into a regional rail service providing faster and more frequent service as well as a higher level of integration between the urban and regional networks. This paper describes the development and evaluation of potential interventions to improve the rapid transit network’s ability to provide quality service to customers. The solutions considered for Toronto – both infrastructure and operational changes – may provide guidance for other cities and agencies facing similar challenges.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 94th Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207