Evaluation of Public Welfare Level of Urban Rail Transit considering Operation Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluating the public welfare level of the urban rail transit systems has not only great significance for the government to provide fair and reasonable subsidies but for the better operation and management of urban rail transit enterprises. An evaluation index system composed of 3 criterion-level indicators and 12 subindexes has been established in this paper. The 3 criterion-level indicators conclude service level, social benefit, and policy loss which are all affected by operation management. Besides, the subjective and objective comprehensive weighting method combined with the analytic hierarchy process method and the entropy weight method is proposed to calculate the index-level weights. Furtherly, the grey correlation-TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation method was designed to calculate the comprehensive evaluation value of the public welfare level of each city. To verify the effectiveness of the proposed method, urban rail transit systems in 16 Chinese cities are studied as a case study. The results show that (1) the three indicators of passenger travel cost (25.69%), the increase in housing prices around urban rail transit(10.74%), and operating cost ratio(9.95%) are more likely to affect the evaluation of public welfare level of urban rail transit. (2) the level of public welfare in different cities is not balanced. The cities with a relatively high level of public welfare relative closeness exceeding 0.5 include Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Suzhou, Wuhan, Nanjing, Wuxi, and Dalian. (3) Both GDP and urban population are positively correlated with the relative closeness of social benefit and service level. (4) The level of public welfare can be improved by reducing the fare price and improving the service level, such as increasing the network density, reducing the departure interval, and increasing the average speed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".