Metro Train Stopping Scheme Decision Based on Multisource Data in Express‐Local Train Mode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The urban rail transit network has gradually realized grid operation with the increase in the coverage rate. Therefore, the stopping schemes in accordance with the trend of the passenger flow are more conducive to improving the attractiveness of the rail transit and improving the sharing rate of the urban public transit. Traditional data from a single source may not be sufficient to describe the overall trend of the passenger flow in a period of time, and the error is possible in the case of insufficient data. Based on the multisource data, the spatial weight function is introduced to fuse the point of interest data and real estate information data, from which one obtains the residential index and office index, and the cluster analysis is conducted to obtain the potential stop scheme. Then, the optimization model of the train operation plan is established, aiming at minimizing the passenger travel time and the generalized system cost, and is constrained by a series of driving conditions. Compared with the single data source, multisource data can better reflect passenger flow trends and land use characteristics. Compared with the traditional all‐station stopping scheme, a reasonable setting of crossing stations and running express‐local trains can better satisfy the demands of the passenger flow. Finally, the optimization of Changchun rail Transit Line 1 shows that the model can reduce the travel time of passengers and the operating cost of the rail transit company and improve the quality of service, so as to achieve a win‐win situation between passengers and the rail transit company.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".