Again and Again About Yerevan Public Transport: Figures and Facts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enough time has passed since the launch of the capital's public transport reform to allow for an initial assessment of the program and the effectiveness of its implementation. At present, for the average citizen, the reform begins with an incomplete implementation of the new fare collection system and ends with the presence of a new bus depot, which has not yet reached the planned capacity. The depot still lacks 18-meter buses, which are the main element of the renewed bus depot and, a key "player" in the new route network of ground public transport. Without fully completing the planned comprehensive program, the city authorities nevertheless decided to revise the ticket pricing policy, although logically this should have been the final link stage of the reform. This raises several questions. What has changed and where are the delays? Is there a clear roadmap and timetable, or are we still following the less effective path of reactive management? What is the passenger behavior when implementing the new tariff policy and choosing travel packages, how effective and applicable are they. How many passengers use this service daily and what amount of revenue does Yerevan budget receive as a result of the operation of ground public transport (buses and trolleybuses) served by a single operator? Finally, when will the new bus network be launched and when can the program be considered complete? The paper addresses these questions by taking into account the planned and actual indicators of expected revenues from this area in the municipal budget for the first quarter of 2025.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".