MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413293266 · doi:10.1016/j.jpubtr.2025.100135

Bit by bit: A method for using bus data to develop plan bus priority interventions in Portland, Oregon, USA

2025· article· en· W4413293266 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul Redelmeier, Rodrigo Victoriano-Habit, Miles Crumley, Ahmed El-Geneidy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Transportation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBit (key)Plan (archaeology)Computer sciencePsychological interventionTelecommunicationsComputer securityPsychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bus Priority Interventions are small-scale changes that improve bus speed and reliability. These include changes to street geometry, bus stops, and traffic signals. Automated Vehicle Location-Automated Passenger Counting (AVL-APC) data can help transit agencies by providing insight into bus location, speed, and passenger volumes. This work proposes an end-to-end methodology for using AVL-APC data to create a concept design for bus priority interventions on a bus corridor. The proposed method is illustrated by analyzing a bus route in Portland, Oregon. This mixed-methods approach paired quantitative data analysis with site visits to identify what was causing delay on the route and suggest targeted interventions. Scenario analysis of historical trip data was employed to predict the impact of different interventions. Historical trips that fell into two different scenarios were compared: a delay scenario (where a specific delay-inducing event occurred, like a red light) and a non-delay scenario (where that event did not occur). This end-to-end methodology could be used by transit agencies and transportation planners to quickly assess different corridors and interventions, diagnose problems, and determine which projects would create the greatest customer and financial benefits. Employing this approach could help planners prioritize time and resources to ensure that the highest impact projects are pursued.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public TransportationSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207