MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027626869 · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.11.190

Strategies to Reduce Energy Use for Commuting by Employees

2013· article· en· W2027626869 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anantha Lakshmi Paladugula, Sujaya Rathi

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsBusinessEnergy (signal processing)Environmental economicsEnvironmental scienceEconomicsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last decade, there has been a paradigm shift in the realisation of the environmental costs of transport, on a societal level and the failure of supply side infrastructure to reduce congestion and its negative impacts. Studies show urban areas with a population above 8 million, consume on an average 16,000 million litres of fuel daily. Cars and two-wheelers contribute to a majority of consumption, accounting for approximately 60 to 90 per cent of the total emissions produced by all modes of transport in various types of cities. This situation will be aggravated (more than twice the current fuel usage), if we continue the paradigm of satisfying increased travel demand with increased capacity. Travel Demand Management (TDM) strategies become imperative in this context. Work trips contribute to a major share of the trip profile in major cities and in Bangalore they constitute about 58 per cent. The paper summarizes the anticipated impact of work commute reduction strategies by a single organisation in Bangalore, in terms of vehicle kilometres travelled and energy use. The work trip profile of employees in an organisation is analysed, to understand the travel behaviour. This paper reviews existing research on policies and programs to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions and discusses the possible impacts of various strategies based in the survey responses.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia - Social and Behavioral SciencesSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207