MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046294346 · doi:10.1680/tran.2010.163.4.203

Empirical evidence for taxi customer-search model

2010· article· en· W2046294346 on OpenAlexaff
R. M. N. T. Sirisoma, S.C. Wong, William H. K. Lam, Donggen Wang, Hai Yang, Peng Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Transport · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxisMultinomial logistic regressionAffect (linguistics)Choice setMarket segmentationBusinessLogistic regressionEmpirical researchMarketingDemographicsSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceEconometricsOperations researchTransport engineeringEconomicsStatisticsEngineeringPsychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A mutinomial logit model of urban taxi services has been developed for the study of the operational characteristics of the taxi industry, in which it is hypothesised that the customer-searching behaviour of vacant taxis follows a multinomial logit choice model. Although the model is commonly used, little empirical evidence exists to validate the choice mechanism and determine the set of important factors that affect the choice. In the present study, a stated preference survey of 400 taxi drivers was conducted to analyse the customer-searching behaviour of vacant taxis. The results explain how the considered parameters of waiting time, journey time, travel distance and toll affect the driver behaviour when searching for customers. In addition, market segmentation analysis was carried out to study the effects of driver demographics and operational characteristics on the searching behaviour. The parameters that were considered in this section of the study were the age of the driver, taxi ownership, driver experience and marital status.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations35
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - TransportSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207