Modeling the Traveler’s Route Choice Behavior under Unexpected Accidents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the route choice behavior of travelers under unexpected accidents, this study designs four different scenarios of travelers’ route choice behavior experiments according to the severity of unexpected accidents. The bounded rationality characteristics of travelers, such as the time perception difference coefficient, psychological threshold effect coefficient, and scale effect, are introduced into the generalized random regret minimization (GRRM) model. An improved generalized random regret minimization (IGRRM) model is constructed based on travelers’ route choice behavior under unexpected accidents. The collected data of travelers’ route choice results under four different congestion-level scenarios are analyzed by the IGRRM model. The study finds that with the increase in congestion level, travelers are more willing to change the route; during the commute, travelers tend to choose the route with less travel time and angular cost; in the moderate and serious congestion scenarios, travelers no longer reject the detour route; attribute perception difference, scale effect, and psychological threshold effect; affect travelers’ route choice behavior. The IGRRM model based on the route choice behavior of travelers can more accurately characterize the route choice behavior of travelers under unexpected accidents, provide a basis for traffic flow distribution under unexpected accidents, and benefit traffic management departments to take traffic control and guidance measures to ease the traffic congestion caused by unexpected accidents.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".