Object-Oriented Analysis of Carsharing System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carsharing systems are gaining new members every month. However, few studies formally define the system and illustrate the systematic processing of administrative data sets to estimate indicators regarding both demand and supply objects. The first outcome of this research is the definition of the object model for a carsharing system. Rich transaction data sets, generally used for the production of monthly bills, are used to estimate indicators describing how the carsharing system is used in the Montreal area of Quebec, Canada. Indicators describing the main objects of the system—members, trip chains (transactions), cars, and stations—are estimated by using continuous data. The demand object analysis focuses on the study of members and their trip chains using the shared cars. The analysis shows that carsharing members are younger than the overall population, with an overrepresentation of 25- to 39-year-olds. The persistency of active members within the carsharing system is estimated at around 60% after 4 months and 50% after 12 months. The supply–objects analysis focuses on the study of cars and stations. Spatial dispersion of members with respect to stations used and typical use of cars is illustrated over long periods. With the increase in the number of members, transactions, cars, and stations, carsharing organizations need to find new ways to manage growth and optimize their networks. A clearer understanding of how their systems are used will help them develop enhanced planning and modeling abilities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".