A systematic scoping review of methods for estimating link-level bicycling volumes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimation of bicycling volumes is essential for the strategic implementation of infrastructure and related transport elements and policies. Link-level volume estimation models (models that estimate volumes on individual street segments) allow for understanding variation in bicycling volumes across an entire network at higher spatial resolution than area-level models. Such models assist transport planners to efficiently monitor network usage, to identify opportunities to enhance safety and to evaluate the impact of policy and infrastructure interventions. However, given the sparsity and scarcity of bicycling data as compared to its motorised counterparts, link-level bicycling volume estimation literature is relatively limited. This paper conducts a scoping review of link-level bicycling volume estimation methods by implementing systematic search strategies across relevant databases, thereby identifying appropriate studies for the review. The review resulted in some interesting findings. Among all the methods implemented, direct demand modelling was the predominant one. Not a single study implemented multiple modelling approaches in the same study area, thereby not allowing for comparison of these approaches. Most studies were conducted in the United States. It was also observed that there exists a lot of heterogeneity in the reporting of basic study characteristics and validation results, sometimes to the extent of not reporting these at all. The study presents the different types of data used in modelling (count, travel survey, GPS data) along with an array of popular explanatory variables that can inform future studies about data collection and variable selection for modelling. The study discusses the strengths and limitations of different methods and finally presents recommendations for future research.
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 | 0.116 | 0.397 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.050 | 0.040 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".