Agent-Based Model for Urban Administration: A Case Study of Bridge Construction and its Traffic Dispersion Effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the viewpoint of urban administration, simulation is regarded as a policy tool that provides administrators with information about the current urban situation and enables them to verify the effectiveness of urban policies. This study proposes a traffic simulation model for a real city named Sejong in South Korea. Our proposed model employs agent-based simulation with the city-level real data, which mainly focuses on describing the movement behavior of individuals using urban traffics in the real city. By aggregating the agents' decisions and interactions during the movement, the proposed model can discover a demand for the city's transportation system. To do this, this study validated the proposed model so that the modeled traffic system was similar to the real one, and then we conducted a case study to compare and analyze the effects of traffic dispersion led by the upcoming bridge construction in the real city. The case study showed that the proposed model can provide policy evaluation on the optimal location of the bridge construction considering the city traffic flow. Furthermore, the case study presented that the agent-based modeling enables micro-level analysis on the city traffic flow to understand on the policy implications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".