MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W622905561

Issues and Strategies Involved in Developing Agent-Based Multimodal Network Simulation Model for Transportation Planning: Lessons from a Case Study on the Troronto and Hamilton Area

2013· article· en· W622905561 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam Weiss, Mahmoud, Peter Kucirek, Kn Habib

Bibliographic record

Venue2013 CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION OF THE TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF CANADA - TRANSPORTATION: BETTER - FASTER - SAFER · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNetwork simulationTransit (satellite)Computer scienceGeocodingNetwork planning and designTransport engineeringFlow networkMultimodal transportTransport networkStreet networkEngineeringPublic transportComputer networkGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents the issues and strategies involved in developing an agent-based multimodal network simulation model for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). The model was developed by using a Java-based open source simulation platform: MATSim. The issues and strategies presented utilize a geocoded automobile network and General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) data of multiple transit agencies within the study area. While network simulation model for automobile network is common, an integrated multimodal network that combines auto and transit network (physical network and daily transit schedules) has not been developed for large study area, such as the GTHA by anyone. A key challenge is to integrate the GTFS data seamlessly in the multimodal framework. The GTFS data allowed meshing the auto network and the transit network together, creating a fully functioning multimodal network. The main challenge associated with this task is the determination of network resolution. The auto network is at times at too low of a resolution relative to the transit network, while the transit network often contained too much detail to be relevant for traffic simulation for a region as large as the GTHA. The paper presents guidelines and example of resolving these issues and overcoming the challenges. (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 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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2013 CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION OF THE TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF CANADA - TRANSPORTATION: BETTER - FASTER - SAFER→Same topicTransportation Planning and Optimization→French-language works237,207→