Incorporating Cycling in Ottawa-Gatineau Travel Forecasting Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents an approach that goes beyond the traditional travel modeling paradigm by incorporating cycling as an explicitly defined mode alternative in the recently updated model for Ottawa-Gatineau. Current models tend to operate with greatly simplified cycling Level-of-Service (LOS) measures (most often an arbitrary specified average speed across the entire network) and do not model details associated with actual cycling routes and facilities. Also, current models largely ignore the cross-modal impacts which cyclists and motorised traffic place upon each other. As a result, policies that affect cycling conditions, for example cycling lanes and/or related traffic regulations cannot be evaluated with the current models. The proposed innovative cycling simulation model for Ottawa-Gatineau, is based on a cycling route choice model that is designed to be sensitive to a wide range of LOS measures including time, speed, level-of-stress, turn conditions at intersections, area type effects etc. This route choice model serves as basis for a regional cycling assignment model. This regional assignment model is integrated into the overall regional travel model that predicts the share of cycling trips versus other auto, transit, and other non-motorized modes for different types of trips and population segments. (A) For the covering abstract of this conference see ITRD record number 201310RT334E.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".