Modelling the Interactions between Information and Communication Technologies and Travel Behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing capabilities and widespread proliferation of information and communication technologies (ICT) into virtually every aspect of lifestyle, combined with the continuing challenges faced by transport systems, has ensured ongoing interest in the interactions between ICT and travel behaviour. Yet, despite more than three decades of efforts to understand these relationships, few point of consensus have so far emerged, partly due to the rapidly evolving character of ICT, and partly due to the inherent complexity of such interactions. This thesis seeks to develop novel understandings of such interactions by introducing a number of extensions to the existing modelling frameworks. This is achieved through three interrelated research objectives which seek to explore the topic from macro, micro, and temporal perspectives. The macro perspective takes the form of a structural equation analysis of the relationships between ICT use and travel behaviour across four countries: Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Norway, with the data for the latter three obtained by pooling separate datasets on ICT use and travel behaviour. The micro perspective seeks to develop a microeconomic model of an individual maximising utility through joint choice of activities, including in-travel activities, ICT use, as well as the choice of travel mode, timing and route, with the decisions motivated by contribution towards satisfaction, productivity, and consumption. The model is subsequently tested in the empirical contexts of rail business travel time, business travel time valuation, and conceptualisation of the ICT and travel behaviour interaction scenarios reported elsewhere in the literature. The final, temporal perspective analyses the comparatively least explored topic of evolution in the relationships between ICT use and travel behaviour over time. This is achieved by analysing repeated cross-sectional data using structural equation modelling, and interpreted with reference to the theory of diffusion of innovations. The thesis also discusses a number of potential research, policy and industrial applications of its empirical and theoretical contributions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".