Land Use as a Criterion for the Selection of the Trip Starting Locations of Park and Ride Mode Travelers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the attempt to study Light Rail Transit (LRT) systems, and their necessary underlying components, such as Park and Ride (P&R) sub-systems, this article aims to showcase the importance of land-use as a criterion in the selection of trip starting locations (i.e., points), that can potentially be used as the basis for quantitative studies on LRT and P&R systems. In order to achieve this goal, a method is introduced for the selection of locations that produce P&R mode trips based on the land-use attributes of sub-zones or neighborhoods, as they are included in Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs). Those land-use attributes are utilized as sub-criteria for the classification and valid selection of trip starting locations out of a broader dataset of available locations. As a second supportive technique that needs to be utilized for this study, an algorithm is introduced, which allows us to test the effectiveness of the method and the importance of land use as a criterion. The algorithm enables the calculation and comparison of the attributes of the trips to be followed by P&R mode users starting from selected trip starting locations for each zone in a city and having as destinations the several available P&R facilities. Results for the methods introduced in this article are showcased based on a case study on the mid-sized city of Cuenca, Ecuador, in which, several metrics, such as traveling times considering different traffic scenarios, are examined for the potential P&R mode trips as they emerge from real-world data.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it