MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388506618 · doi:10.18757/ejtir.2018.18.1.3222

Development of a household travel resource allocation model

2018· article· en· W4388506618 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kevin Yeung, Jeffrey M. Casello

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean journal of transport and infrastructure research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsHeuristicsMetropolitan areaScheduleContext (archaeology)Public transportDuration (music)Transport engineeringDemographicsResource allocationLand useTravel behaviorComputer scienceBudget constraintHeuristicResource (disambiguation)BusinessOperations researchGeographyEconomicsEngineeringMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Households allocate their travel resources – vehicles, time, budget, and supervision – to accomplish activities while minimizing overall time and cost subject to a set of constraints – the duration and sequence of activities, and the need to provide transportation to dependent travellers. In this research, we develop and test a heuristic based approach to schedule activities using a cost (disutility) minimization objective. The model is evaluated by comparing predicted schedules generated by the heuristics to actual travel patterns reported by participant households. While the dataset is small – only 14 households are included – the model successfully identifies tours for households of various compositions and demographics. The research is important in the local context as the study area – the Region of Waterloo, Canada – is a largely auto-dependent metropolitan area that is building a 19km, $818M (CDN) Light Rail Transit (LRT) system intended to increase public transport use and influence land use change. The Region is amongst the smallest municipalities in North America to implement this infrastructure.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean journal of transport and infrastructure researchSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207