Investigating Travel Flow Differences between Peak Hours with Spatial Model with Endogenous Weight Matrix Using Automatic Vehicle Identification Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid urbanization has brought great challenges to the transportation network. However, travel flow at peak hours is not always the same. It is important to investigate how travel flow differs between peak hours to capture travel flow patterns and influential factors to facilitate traffic management and urban planning. This paper establishes a spatial model with endogenous weight matrix (SARBP-EWM) to investigate the travel flow differences between morning and evening peaks on both weekday and weekend based on automatic vehicle identification (AVI) data and point of interest (POI) data in Xuancheng, China. The results confirm strong spatial effects and endogeneity issue. Besides, facility variables such as number of offices and number of clinics reveal strong negative impacts on travel flow differences on both weekday and weekend, while the number of middle school shows significantly positive relation with travel flow differences. In addition, the endogenous weight matrix on both weekday and weekend is successfully estimated and compared. It is found that TAZ pairs tend to be clustered with lower spatial weights on weekday, while they are more randomly distributed with higher spatial weights at weekend. Based on the results above, the policies proposed from Xuancheng 14th Five-Year Plan are evaluated and discussed. The above empirical analysis quantifies impacts from key factors on urban travel flow differences between peak hours and provides important references for urban planning and policy making.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".