MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285160254 · doi:10.1109/tfuzz.2022.3185680

Assessing Spatial Synergy Between Integrated Urban Rail Transit System and Urban Form: A BULI-Based MCLSGA Model With the Wisdom of Crowds

2022· article· en· W4285160254 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Social Science Fund of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCrowdsUrban rail transitTransport engineeringComputer scienceUrban transitGeographic information systemPublic transportEconomic geographyGeographyComputer securityEngineeringRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatially synergizing the urban rail transit (URT) network integrated with its feeder transit system and the urban form plays an important role in improving the effectiveness of URT in mitigating traffic congestion, reducing air pollution, optimizing urban spatial structure, etc. This article mainly focuses on assessing the spatial synergy between the two parts by specifying the assessment criteria that can effectively characterize the spatial synergic mechanism between the two parts and developing a novel multicriteria large-scale group assessment (MCLSGA) model, in which basic uncertain linguistic information (BULI), as an extended form of fuzzy linguistic approach, is used to model and process the subjective assessment information (Assess-Inf) elicited by experts. In order to alleviate the computing complexity, an agglomerative hierarchical clustering algorithm is introduced to cluster the Assess-Inf given by a huge number of experts as per the organizers’ expected discrimination level on reliability-related Assess-Inf. A method for weighting the clusters is then proposed to control the roles played by the items of the Assess-Inf, representing each cluster and having different reliability levels in their fusing process to tap into wisdom of crowds (WOC) while accommodating the organizers’ trust level in the reliability-related Assess-Inf given by experts. Afterward, the best–worst method is extended to the BULI-based large-scale group assessment context with the aim of accurately weighting the criteria by drawing on WOC. Finally, a case study on assessing the spatial synergy between Chongqing’s integrated URT system and urban form is conducted to validate the validity of the proposed MCLSGA model.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.230 · 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