Sometimes simple is good enough: An analysis of methods for residential building population estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Residential building population data can be useful in a breadth of urban planning, health, transportation, and business applications. Unfortunately, complete datasets of residential building populations are not widely available for use in Canada, and therefore either larger census geographies are used or residential building populations must be estimated. This research explores four different methods of estimating residential building populations, including: an equal allocation method, two measures based on building volume, and a novel method that integrates census data at the dissemination area level to calibrate a population estimation model. This work comprises three parts: 1) a description of these approaches, 2) an evaluation of their validity in a case study in Hamilton, Ontario, and 3) an application of these methods in measuring spatial accessibility to schools. Our results show that most methods yield very similar results, and most provide reasonable estimates of building populations that could be useful for some analytical tasks. However, all methods resulted in instances of error, particularly for the largest population buildings. We conclude that while more complex methods do not significantly outperform simpler methods based on building volume alone, the blend of these methods could yield more accurate population predictions.
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 | 0.079 | 0.290 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".