Incentive subsidy scheme design with elastic transport demand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Huge public transport subsidies caused by deficits have become a heavy financial burden on some local governments due to the decline of bus passenger numbers. It is essential to apply the performance‐based contract to bus services considering maximization of social welfare. This paper constructs an incentive subsidy contract considering the decision‐making powers of the service level and calculating the proper frequency elasticity aiming at two problems of performance‐based contracts. Meanwhile, we consider a role of bus operators ignored by most researchers. Under the scheme, the decision‐making power of the service level is discussed based on five assumptions, and meanwhile, bus operators are motivated to reduce cost and improve service level in the scheme. The case of the bus service of Arao city indicates that the optimal frequency equals to zero when bus operators decide frequency. If bus operators determine efforts, the optimal effort also equals to zero with the goal of maximizing the profit. Also, bus operators can play their roles in lessening cost and improving service level to help bus operators and the local government achieve a win‐win situation, which maximizes the social benefit in this subsidy scheme when all factors are decided by the government. Copyright © 2013 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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".