MoPeD meets MITO: a hybrid modeling framework for pedestrian travel demand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Transport demand models were initially designed for simulating car trips. Nowadays researchers and planners are considering pedestrian travel and its health and safety impacts in the regional transport models. However, the existing transport models lack the knowledge and experience in pedestrian modeling for health assessment. This paper contributes to the modeling practice by developing an integrated model called the MITO/MoPeD. The model builds upon previous model development and integrates the fine-grained pedestrian modeling tool into the agent-based transport model. The MITO/MoPeD model is applied to the Munich metropolitan area. Model performances are analyzed based on travel measures (e.g., walk share, trip length distribution, and pedestrian flow) and physical activity volumes. Results show that the MITO/MoPeD model can better represent pedestrian travel behavior than the existing Munich Model. It performed better in simulating the spatial distribution of walk shares and the distribution of walk trip lengths. Moreover, it overcomes the issue of overestimating physical activity volumes. These findings suggest that the MITO/MoPeD model can deliver more precise travel outcomes. More importantly, it is valuable for addressing pedestrian planning issues such as transportation infrastructure investments, land use planning, assessment of safety and health outcomes, and evaluation of environmental impacts.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".