Comparative study of statistical and machine learning methods for streetcar incident duration analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to investigate and identify the contributing factors to long-duration streetcar incident delay, where contingency plan could be activated. For comparative study, the performance of eight statistical and machine learning methods, including logistic regression model, Bayesian logit regression model, classification and regression tree model, K-nearest neighbours model, random forest model, gradient boosting model and artificial neural network model, have been compared and analysed based on the Toronto streetcar incident dataset in 2019 with 11418 streetcar incident records. The comparative study results show that the random forest method has the best performance, whose marginal effect analysis further demonstrates that the most significant contributing factors to streetcar incident delay duration are the morning peak period, the streetcar incidents types including mechanical failure, held by, diversion and late leaving the garage, as well as the month and weekday. The result of the paper could provide policy implication on timely streetcar incident clearance and contingency plan implementation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it