MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1790684974 · doi:10.1002/atr.1219

Traffic rationing and pricing in a linear monocentric city

2012· article· en· W1790684974 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wei Liu, Hai Yang, Yafeng Yin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHong Kong University of Science and TechnologyNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsRationingTollEconomicsMicroeconomicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY This paper presents a simple spatial equilibrium model for a linear monocentric city to investigate the effects of rationing and pricing on morning commuters' travel cost and modal choice behavior in each location. Under rationing and pricing, every day in the morning peak hour, each commuter is classified as either “free” or “rationed”. “Free” commuters are allowed to use the highway without paying the toll, whereas “rationed” commuters can avoid the toll only if they travel by transit. Each day, a fraction of commuters are rationed in their free use of the highway, and the rationing fractions are determined systematically so that everyone is equally rationed in a given period. It is found that Pareto‐improving rationing and pricing scheme might be obtained as a combination of the rationing degree and the toll associated with rationing. Extension to the rationing and pricing scheme with cordon and park‐and‐ride service has been made. Cordon and park‐and‐ride might help in improving the efficiency of rationing and pricing strategy although remains its Pareto‐improving property. 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations35
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207