MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W124411441

Microsimulating Residential Mobility and Spatial Search Behavior: Estimation of Continuous-Time Hazard and Discrete-Time Panel Logit Models for Residential Mobility

2008· article· en· W124411441 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Muhammad Ahsanul Habib, Eric J. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 87th Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom effects modelEconometricsLogitMixed logitPanel dataHazardDiscrete choiceDuration (music)StatisticsEstimationParametric statisticsLogistic regressionMultilevel modelComputer scienceEconomicsMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper attempts to conceptualize the residential mobility and spatial search process to be implemented within a microsimulation-based integrated modeling system and presents empirical results of econometric models of mobility applying both discrete choice and hazard-based duration modeling techniques using Greater Toronto Area (GTA) retrospective survey data. It tests and compares fixed effects, random intercept and random parameter discrete-time panel logit models and parametric frailty models that account for unobserved heterogeneity. While the random parameter model (RP) performs better in identifying residential stressors that lead to mobility, the log-logistic Gaussian shared frailty model shows promising results in explaining termination of passive-state duration. The study reveals that most stressors that relate to life cycle events such as job change, birth of a child, increase/decrease in number of jobs etc. are significant in the RP Model. On the other hand, dwelling and neighborhood characteristics are dominant in the continuous-time shared frailty model.

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)0.010
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 87th Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207