MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385977724 · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-40639-y

Sustainability analysis framework for on-demand public transit systems

2023· article· en· W4385977724 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nael Alsaleh, Bilal Farooq

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan University
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsPublic transportSustainabilityEquity (law)Environmental economicsBusinessElectrificationTransit systemTransport engineeringSocial equalityTransit (satellite)Carbon footprintSustainable transportCarpoolBus rapid transitEconomicsGreenhouse gasEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is an increased interest from transit agencies to replace fixed-route transit services with on-demand public transits (ODT). However, it is still unclear when and where such a service is efficient and sustainable. To this end, we provide a comprehensive framework for assessing the sustainability of ODT systems from the perspective of overall efficiency, environmental footprint, and social equity and inclusion. The proposed framework is illustrated by applying it to the Town of Innisfil, Ontario, where an ODT system has been implemented since 2017. It can be concluded that when there is adequate supply and no surge pricing, crowdsourced ODTs are the most cost-effective transit system when the demand is below 3.37 riders/km 2 /day. With surge pricing applied to crowdsourced ODTs, hybrid systems become the most cost-effective transit solution when demand ranges between 1.18 and 3.37 riders/km 2 /day. The use of private vehicles is more environmentally sustainable than providing public transit service at all demand levels below 3.37 riders/km 2 /day. However, the electrification of the public transit fleet along with optimized charging strategies can reduce total yearly GHG emissions by more than 98%. Furthermore, transit systems have similar equity distributions for waiting and in-vehicle travel times.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207