MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023906906 · doi:10.1139/l10-008

Analysis of work trip timing and mode choice in the Greater Toronto Area

2010· article· en· W2023906906 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Nicholas Day, Khandker Nurul Habib, Eric J. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsCanadian Natural ResourcesIBI Group (Canada)University of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMode choiceMode (computer interface)Multinomial logistic regressionWork (physics)EconometricsModalTransport engineeringTrip distributionTravel behaviorLogitStatisticsComputer scienceEconomicsEngineeringMathematicsPublic transport

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses on examining and analyzing observed trends in work trip making in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Commuter trip timing and mode choice behaviour are investigated to explain the main reasons behind peak spreading observed in cordon count data from 1975 through 2004 and to better understand the relationship between modal and temporal decisions. From analysis it becomes clear that significant differences exist in the trip timing trends of individuals choosing different modes. Multinomial logit mode choice models are developed for separate occupation groups, revealing significant differences in the mode choice preferences between occupation groups. Such differences are related to the differences in occupation-specific factors, including labour rates, work hour rules, free parking availability, and the spatial distribution of work locations. Overall, the investigations of this paper indicate that a joint analysis and modelling of trip timing and mode choice has considerable merit in travel demand models.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations12
Published2010
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207