MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023452542 · doi:10.3141/1719-09

Toronto Area Car Ownership Study: A Retrospective Interview and Its Applications

2000· article· en· W2023452542 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matthew J. Roorda, Abolfazl Mohammadian, Eric J. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoProcter & Gamble (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrosimulationUnivariateCar ownershipLoyaltyComputer scienceTransport engineeringSurvey data collectionTelephone surveyWork (physics)Travel behaviorData collectionOperations researchEngineeringMarketingBusinessPublic transportStatisticsMultivariate statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent work in the area of comprehensive transportation modeling systems in a microsimulation framework, more specifically auto ownership modeling, has recognized the need for increased experimentation with dynamic models. Implicitly, dynamic models require longitudinal data. A Toronto area car ownership study was conducted to design and administer a longitudinal survey to fulfill the data requirements for such a dynamic model, to validate the survey results, and to conduct preliminary analysis on those results. An in-depth retrospective telephone survey was conducted with the help of a computer aid in Toronto, Canada. Simple univariate analyses were conducted on the data to determine the relationship between characteristics of the household and the occurrence of vehicle transactions, the choice of vehicle type, the duration a vehicle is held, and the degree of consumer loyalty to different types of vehicles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations31
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207