MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295038183 · doi:10.1155/2022/6458371

Exploring Transit Use during COVID-19 Based on XGB and SHAP Using Smart Card Data

2022· article· en· W4295038183 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eun Hak Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKorea Railroad Research Institute
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Transit (satellite)Computer scienceEconometricsPublic transportTransport engineeringMedicineEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic continues, many protective measures have been taken in Seoul, Korea, and around the world. This situation has drastically changed lifestyle and travel behavior. An important issue concerns understanding the reasons for giving up transit use and the potential impact on travel patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic. To shed light on these issues that are essential for transit policy, this study explores transit use choice, such as whether users have given-up transit use or not, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two days of smart card data, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, were used to look at users who gave up transit use during the COVID-19 pandemic. The choice set of the dataset includes two alternatives, for example, transit use and given-up transit use. An extreme gradient boosting (XGB) model was used to estimate the transit use behavior. Shapley additive explanations were performed to interpret the estimation results of the XGB model. The results for the overall specificity, sensitivity, and balanced accuracy of the proposed XGB model were estimated to be 0.909, 0.953, and 0.931, respectively. The feature analysis based on the Shapley value shows that the number of origin-to-destination trip feature substantially impacts transit use. As such, users tend to avoid transit use as travel time increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The proposed model shows remarkable performance in accuracy and provided an understanding of the estimated results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.147 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207