Understanding the Shortest Route Selection Behavior for Private Cars Using Trajectory Data and Navigation Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traffic information and driving preference play critical roles in the route selection of drivers and further impact transport management in practice. Some studies have explored the difference between actual and shortest paths for private cars during route selection. However, the quantification of the difference and deviation as well as the impacts of the date on route selection is still seldom investigated. The study proposed a method to quantify the deviation between actual and shortest paths based on big trajectory data and the digital map. Firstly, the rules of private car travel are determined according to the definition of a trip, and the travel trajectory is divided based on these rules to attain many trips. Then, the trip routes and their attributes are generated by geographical information methods. Baidu Map’s path planning collects the shortest routes with the optimal distance and time, and the deviation between actual and recommended paths is compared. Finally, the results of 2860 private car trips of nearly 400 drivers in Chongqing, China, reveal that only about 67% of the actual trips match well with the shortest path, which was significantly higher compared to existing studies. However, the deviation between the actual and shortest paths is limited to 9 minutes or 2 kilometers. There was no significant difference between the weekday and weekend in the proportion. Compared with the weekday, the indicators of the weekend are more deviated. Path selection and the deviation vary in travel modes, OD types, drivers’ preferences, travel time intervals, and distance intervals.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".