Behavior of taxi customers in hailing vacant taxis: a nested logit model for policy analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This study models and examines the taxi customers' preferences for hailing vacant taxis on streets. A stated preference survey was conducted to randomly select and interview 1242 taxi customers at taxi stands and pedestrians on streets, who had experiences of taking taxis recently, about their choices under different given hypothetical scenarios. In total, 4968 observations were collected and used for developing the discrete choice models for the analysis. To account for the potential correlations among alternatives, two nested logit models are developed, calibrated, and compared with a standard multinomial logit model in the investigation. The results of likelihood ratio test demonstrate that one of the developed nested logit models is better than the standard multinomial logit model to describe the search behavior of taxi customers. The model results also show that the walking time to and the waiting time at the location for hailing taxis, the extra travel time to the destination because of local circulation for finding a way from the pickup location heading to a passenger's destination, as well as the taxi customers' perceptions for walking to and waiting at taxi stands were found as significant factors to influence their decisions. In addition, the results of market segmentation analysis illustrate the variations in taxi‐search strategies of taxi customers in different districts and regions. Some policy implications on introducing more taxi stands and improving the utilization rates of taxi stands are also discussed. We believe that the proposed models, findings, and discussion are useful for developing micro‐simulation models to evaluate the performance of road traffic networks with taxi services and developing simulation‐based optimization models to answer policy questions related to taxi services. Copyright © 2015 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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".