Temporal transferability of models of mode-destination choice for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transport planning relies extensively on forecasts of traveler behavior over horizons of 20 years and more. Implicit in such forecasts is the assumption that travelers’ tastes, as represented by the behavioral model parameters, are constant over time. In technical terms, this assumption is referred to as the "temporal transferability" of the models. This paper summarizes the findings from a literature review that demonstrates there is little evidence about the transferability of mode-destination models over typical forecasting horizons. The literature review shows a relative lack of empirical studies given the importance of the issue. To provide further insights and evidence, models of commuter mode-destination choice been developed from household interview data collected across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area in 1986, 1996, 2001, and 2006. The analysis demonstrates that improving model specification improves the transferability of the models, and in general the transferability declines as the transfer period increases. The transferability of the level-of-service parameters is higher than transferability of the cost parameters, which has important implications when considering the accuracy of forecasts for different types of policy. The transferred models over-predict the key change in mode share over the transfer period—specifically, the shift from local transit to auto driver between 1986 and 1996—but under-predict the growth in commuting tour lengths over the same period.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".