An Activity-Based Travel Personalization Tool Driven by the Genetic Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The necessity for an external control mechanism that optimizes daily urban trips becomes evident when considering numerous factors at play within a complex environment. This research introduces an activity-based travel personalization tool that incorporates 10 travel decision-making factors driven by the genetic algorithm. To evaluate the framework, a complex artificial scenario is created comprising six activities in a daily plan. Afterwards, the scenario is simulated for predefined user profiles, and the results of the simulation are compared based on the users’ characteristics. The simulations of the scenario successfully demonstrate the appropriate utilization of activity constraints and the efficient implementation of users’ spatiotemporal priorities. In comparison to the base case, significant time savings ranging from 31.2% to 70.2% are observed in the daily activity chains of the simulations. These results indicate that the magnitude of time savings in daily activity simulations depends on how users assign values to the travel decision-making parameters, reflecting the attitudinal differences among the predefined users in this study. This tool holds promise for advancing longitudinal travel behavior research, particularly in gaining a more profound understanding of travel patterns.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".