Evaluating Social and Spatial Equity in Public Transport: A Case Study
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
The present study aims to evaluate public transport access distribution based on a framework of vertical equity principles. In this method, traffic analysis zones (TAZs) are analyzed by comparing the estimated transit demand with the existing geographical distribution of the network's benefits (e.g., accessibility and mobility). The framework deploys the concept of connectivity power to measure the distribution of a transit system's supply. On the other hand, demand is measured by an exhaustive index, the weighted average of four social indicators, namely the number of low-income people, the population, the households without vehicles, and the disabled in the TAZs. These weights can differ from city to city depending on culture, politics, social behavior, and costs of effective parameters such as fuel, parking, and tickets in that particular city. The framework was applied to the comprehensive transit network of Tehran, Iran. Finally, diagonal and radical lines linking the city's southwest to its northeast are proposed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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