MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062433653 · doi:10.1080/715020598

Impact of telecommuting and intelligent transportation systems on residential location choice

2003· article· en· W2062433653 on OpenAlexafffundabout
M R Tayyaran, Ata M. Khan, Donald A. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Planning and Technology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersScience and Engineering Research BoardNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTelecommutingMixed logitDiscrete choiceLogitPreferenceTransport engineeringTransportation planningEstimationChoice modellingUrban planningPublic transportComputer scienceBusinessLogistic regressionEconometricsEconomicsEngineeringMarketingMicroeconomicsCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impacts of telecommuting and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) on urban development patterns were investigated in terms of households' residential location choice decisions. A discrete choice modelling approach framework was used. A stated preference (SP) logit analysis was carried out to estimate the parameters of the utility function. An attitude survey of employees of selected public and private sector organizations in the Ottawa-Carleton Region (Canada) yielded the required data for model estimation. In addition to obtaining background information, the survey elicited SP responses by presenting a number of hypothetical residential choice scenarios defined according to the principles of SP experimental design. Results show that telecommuting and ITS measures are highly significant factors in the residential choice model. This leads to the conclusion that these reinforce dispersed residential patterns and encourage moves towards outlying sites. Implications of this conclusion for urban land development planning are noted.

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)0.010
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations50
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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