Identification Dockless Bike‐Sharing and Metro Transfer Travelers through Mobility Chain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The burgeoning dockless bike‐sharing system presents a promising solution to the first‐ and last‐mile transportation challenge by connecting trip origins/destinations to metro stations. However, the differentiation between metro passengers and DBS riders, as they belong to distinct systems, hinders the precise identification of DBS‐metro transfers. This study introduces an innovative method employing mobility chains to establish spatiotemporal relationships, including spatiotemporal conflicts and similarities, among potential users from both systems. This significantly enhances the precision of user matching. An empirical study in Chengdu validates the method’s increased accuracy and examines travel patterns, yielding the following insights: (1) Introduction of the mobility chain reduces average matched pairs by 28.27% and improves accuracy by 18.36%. The addition of spatial‐temporal similarity further boosts accuracy by 19.32%. (2) Median distances for DBS‐metro access and egress transfers are approximately 950 meters. Short trips of 650–750 meters are prevalent, while trips exceeding 1.5 kilometers lead passengers to opt for alternative modes. (3) Temporal patterns reveal weekday peaks at 8:00, 9:00, and 17:00. On weekends, transfers are uniformly distributed, mainly within urban areas. Suburban stations exhibit reduced weekend activity. These findings can provide valuable insights for enhancing DBS bicycle redistribution, promoting transportation mode integration, and fostering urban transportation’s sustainable development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".