MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010459266 · doi:10.1002/atr.142

Understanding members' carsharing (activity) persistency by using econometric model

2010· article· en· W2010459266 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Catherine Morency, Khandker Nurul Habib, Vincent Grasset, Md. Tazul Islam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of TorontoPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsOrdered probitProbit modelProbitEconometric modelEconometricsPassenger transportService (business)Mode (computer interface)Computer scienceTransport engineeringBusinessMarketingEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Carsharing is an innovative travel alternative that has recently experienced considerable growth and become part of sustainable transportation initiatives. Although carsharing is becoming increasingly a popular alternative transportation mode in North America, it is still an under‐researched area. Current research is aimed at better understanding of the behavior of carsharing users. For every member, a two‐stage approach microsimulates the probability of being active in any month using a binary probit model and given that a particular member is active during a month, the probability of that member using the service multiple times using a random utility‐based model. The model is estimated using empirical data from one of the largest carsharing companies in North America. The model estimates reveal that the activity persistency of members is positively linked to previous behaviors for up to 4 months, and that the influence of previous months weakens over time. It also shows that some attributes of the traveler (gender, age, and language spoken at home) impact his or her behaviors. Copyright © 2010 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations46
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207