Evaluating Bicycling Environments with Trajectory Data on Shared Bikes: A Case Study of Beijing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A detailed evaluation of the riding environment can help the government master the urban riding environment, identify problematic road sections, and improve riding quality. However, the current evaluation of riding environment is mainly subjective, lacking big data (e.g., shared bicycle trajectory data) as a data-driven objective evaluation system. The emergence of shared bicycle data has provided data support for data-driven riding environment evaluation, but there are few studies using shared bicycle data for riding evaluation at present. First, according to the characteristics of the data and the riding environment, a boxplot method and Bayesian probabilistic network model are used to exclude abnormal data and to match trajectories to road sections. Second, this paper proposes a data-driven evaluation framework based on riding influencing factors. An evaluation framework, which is composed of node-, link-, and block-level evaluation indicators, was constructed, using an evaluation model combining TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) and KNN (K-Nearest Neighbors). The evaluation results can identify parking issues, intersection difficulties, and lane occupancy issues on bicycle sections, and visually reflect the riding environment. The significance of this article is to create an objective evaluation system based on a data-driven technology to accurately identify sections and causes of riding quality problems. The research results can be applied in the future to evaluate the cycling environment around the railway stations for bicycle parking planning and determine the foothold for traffic management.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".