MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039479607 · doi:10.1080/03081060.2011.651878

A GPS-aided survey for assessing trip reporting accuracy and travel of students without telephone land lines

2012· article· en· W2039479607 on OpenAlexaffabout
Josée Dumont, Amer Shalaby, Matthew J. Roorda

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Planning and Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban and Freight Transport Logistics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTRIPS architectureGlobal Positioning SystemTravel behaviorTransport engineeringSample (material)GeographyTravel surveyComputer scienceEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A geo-positioning satellite (GPS)-based survey, using a web-based prompted recall tool, was conducted on a sample of 94 students at the University of Toronto from November 2008 to April 2009. The sample included students with and without telephone land lines, allowing for a statistical comparison of demographic and travel behaviour attributes. The same subjects simultaneously completed a traditional trip reporting survey, modelled on the household travel survey in Toronto, allowing for a comparison between the travel behaviour information obtained from the GPS and that reported by the participants in the traditional survey. Students with a land line are more likely to live in houses, with parents, and to live in suburban areas than students without a land line. They also make fewer trips in total, fewer discretionary trips, more transit and auto trips and fewer active trips than students without a land line. By comparing questionnaire-based data and GPS data, we found that most participants reported in the questionnaire either the same number of GPS-based trips or fewer. On average, the GPS survey captured 1.29 more daily trips per participant than the corresponding trips reported in the questionnaire.

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)0.007
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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Planning and TechnologySame topicUrban and Freight Transport LogisticsFrench-language works237,207