MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410518468 · doi:10.1177/03611981251334620

Panel Regression Analysis of Disruption Frequency of Urban Rail Transit Systems

2025· article· en· W4410518468 on OpenAlexaff
J. Chen, Amer Shalaby, Tiezhu Li, Hui Liu, Yiyong Bo, Fei Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsRegression analysisTransit (satellite)Transport engineeringEngineeringPublic transportStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-frequency short delays in the urban rail transit system result in a cumulative delay effect within the network, which in turn affects the daily operational organization. Most studies focus more on long-term disruption, but there is less research on high-frequency short delays, lacking detailed classification and definition. Based on the 13-week operation data of Nanjing Metro and the detailed division of short-delay frequency, this study constructed four panel-regression models and compared and explained the influencing factors from multiple perspectives. The results show that the negative binomial fixed-effects model has the best goodness of fit. The two-way fixed-effects model increased complexity but does not improve fitting performance compared with the fixed-effects model. There are no significant time fixed effects in the three types of frequency data. New routes, remote stations with low passenger volume, stations with more train trips, and stations with surrounding land use of commercial service facilities have a higher frequency of minor delays, highlighting the need to deploy adequate facilities at these stations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207