A Bus‐Service‐Based Zone Division Approach for the Spatial Analysis of Public Bus: A Case Study in South China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public bus is one of the major green transport modes in most cities, and a proper analysis of public bus can enhance its sustainable development. Hence, the analysis of public bus is always a hot research topic. Generally, to consider the heterogeneity in the studied area and reduce the computation difficulties, the study area is divided into multiple zones and then various analytical methods are applied. However, an improper zone division could lower the quality of the analysis results and then probably mislead the improvement strategy design. This study examines the influence of the two commonly used zone division methods (the grid‐based method and the natural‐boundary‐based method) on the spatial analysis of public bus service using the analytical example. The result shows that the impact of zone division exists. Therefore, this study aims to identify the possible approach to reduce the negative impact and suggests a new zone division method, the bus‐service‐based (BS‐based) method, for the spatial analysis of public bus service. The BS‐based method is compared with the commonly used zone division methods using the real‐world data, and the comparison results demonstrate that the BS‐based method can be more efficient to support the spatial analysis of bus service.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".