Trip generation modeling using data collected in single and repeated cross‐sectional surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY The majority of US metropolitan regions still use the four‐step urban transportation modeling system to develop their travel forecasts. Trip generation, the first step of this system, has as objective of predicting the expected total travel demand in a region. The commonly used methods in planning practice for predicting this expected total travel demand typically use only the most recent cross‐sectional data available from a study region for model development, which ties the resulting travel‐forecast model to the economic environment prevailing at the time of data collection. Applying such models to generate forecasts of travel in economic environments significantly different from those embodied in the estimated model parameters could result in greater errors than would otherwise be the case. To address the aforementioned problem, this paper proposes the development of trip generation models estimated on multiple independent cross‐sectional datasets collected in the same urban region but at different times representing different economic environments. Data used in the research were collected in cross‐sectional household travel behavior surveys undertaken in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada in 1986, 1996, 2001, and 2006. The results lead to the conclusion that well‐specified models, estimated on pooled multiple cross‐sectional datasets, yield travel predictions in the base and horizon years, respectively, that have smaller error compared with corresponding travel predictions generated with single cross‐sectional models. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".