Comparison of Neural and Conventional Approaches to Mode Choice Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a new approach to behavioral mode choice modeling using neurofuzzy models. The new approach combines the learning ability of artificial neural networks and the transparent nature of fuzzy logic. The approach is found to be highly adaptive and efficient in investigating nonlinear relationships among different variables. In addition, the approach only selects the variables that significantly influence the mode choice and displays the stored knowledge in terms of fuzzy linguistic rules. This allows the modal decision-making process to be examined and understood in great detail. The neurofuzzy model is tested on the U.S. freight transport market using information on individual shipper and individual shipments. Shipments are disaggregated at the five-digit Standard Transportation Commodity Code level. Results obtained from this exercise are compared with similar results obtained from the conventional logit mode choice model and the standard back-propagation artificial neural network. The advantages of using the neurofuzzy approach are described.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it