Urban rail transit disruption management: Research progress and future directions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Urban rail transit (URT) disruptions present considerable challenges due to several factors: i) a high probability of occurrence, arising from facility failures, disasters, and vandalism; ii) substantial negative effects, notably the delay of numerous passengers; iii) an escalating frequency, attributable to the gradual aging of facilities; and iv) severe penalties, including substantial fines for abnormal operation. This article systematically reviews URT disruption management literature from the past decade, categorizing it into pre-disruption and post-disruption measures. The pre-disruption research focuses on reducing the effects of disruptions through network analysis, passenger behavior analysis, resource allocation for protection and backup, and enhancing system resilience. Conversely, post-disruption research concentrates on restoring normal operations through train rescheduling and bus bridging services. The review reveals that while post-disruption strategies are thoroughly explored, pre-disruption research is predominantly analytical, with a scarcity of practical pre-emptive solutions. Moreover, future research should focus more on increasing the interchangeability of transport modes, reinforcing redundancy relationships between URT lines, and innovating post-disruption strategies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it