MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984758736 · doi:10.3141/1807-12

Nested Logit Models and Artificial Neural Networks for Predicting Household Automobile Choices: Comparison of Performance

2002· article· en· W1984758736 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkCategorical variableComputer scienceNested logitArtificial intelligenceDiscrete choiceMachine learningPerceptronLogitLogistic regressionMultilayer perceptronEconometricsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past few years, machine-learning techniques have expanded enormously. These approaches are increasingly being applied to traffic and transportation problems formerly reserved for formal statistical approaches such as discrete choice models. Part of the reason for this has to do with research trends, but there are some potential advantages associated with such techniques, including the ability to model nonlinear systems; the ease with which symbolic, nominal, or categorical variables can be included; and the ability of these methods to deal with noisy data. The use of two modeling techniques, the nested logit model and the multilayer perceptron artificial neural network, was investigated in terms of their applicability to the household vehicle choice problem. Both methods generated strong results, although the multilayer perceptron artificial neural network yielded better predictive potential.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.242
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.166 · 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