Assessing Spatial Synergy Between Integrated Urban Rail Transit System and Urban Form: A BULI-Based MCLSGA Model With the Wisdom of Crowds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".