MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034153215 · doi:10.3141/2416-06

Assessing Impact of Carsharing on Household Car Ownership in Montreal, Quebec, Canada

2014· article· en· W2034153215 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mary G. Y. Klincevicius, Catherine Morency, Martin Trépanier

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCar ownershipService (business)BusinessCensusRegression analysisPopulationTransport engineeringDemographic economicsMarketingGeographyEconomicsStatisticsEngineeringDemographyPublic transportMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carsharing is a service in which members of an organization have access to vehicles for predetermined periods of time (usually with short duration). One of the main impacts of this service in a city is said to be the reduction of car ownership. However, most studies used surveys of carsharing members to evaluate this effect, and these surveys may contain a bias because of the members’ interpretation of reality. This study proposes a first assessment of the reduction of car ownership in an area served by station-based carsharing service; the study used historical empirical data describing the population (Canadian census), typical travel behaviors, and car ownership (origin–destination surveys). Multiple regression models are used to study the relation between household and individual car ownership and exposure to carsharing, while controlling for other variables known to also influence ownership. Although more complex model formulations need to be tested to enhance the analysis, the results obtained in this analysis using linear regression models indicate that the number of shared vehicles in a 500-m radius is negatively correlated with car ownership.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 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

Citations40
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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