MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414580030 · doi:10.38094/jocef602110

Analyzing Transit Stop Service Areas Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS): A Case Study of UET Taxila

2025· article· en· W4414580030 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Salman, Muhammad Arshad, Muhammad Noman, Sami Ullah Khan, Afaq Ahmed, Muzammal Hussain

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Civil Engineering Frontiers · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransit (satellite)Public transportGeographic information systemTransit systemService (business)KilometerRail transitInformation systemFlow network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The University of Engineering and Technology Taxila (UET Taxila), established in 1975 as a campus of the University of Engineering and Technology Lahore, is a leading public university in Taxila, Punjab, Pakistan. With a transportation network spanning approximately 518 square kilometers across Islamabad, Rawalpindi, and Wah Cantt, it provides an economical and efficient transit system for students, faculty, and staff. This study evaluates the service area coverage of transit stops using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to assess network efficiency, accessibility, and spatial gaps. At the university, 16 buses operate across 16 routes, serving an average of 810 users daily. The analysis defines transit stop service areas based on 5, 10, and 15-minute walking times, assuming a walking speed of 100 meters per minute. Results reveal that 69% of users access transit stops within a walkable distance, while 31% rely on other modes of transport. Among those with walking access, 27% reach a stop in under 5 minutes, 23% within 5 to 10 minutes, and 19% within 10 to 15 minutes. These findings provide valuable insights for optimizing the university's transportation network and supporting future transit planning decisions

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 venueJournal of Civil Engineering FrontiersSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207