MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064867826 · doi:10.3141/2077-22

Office Decisions to Change Location

2008· article· en· W2064867826 on OpenAlexafffund
Ilan Elgar, Eric J. Miller, Khandker Nurul Habib

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Economics and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsCanadian Natural ResourcesUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Toronto
FundersTransport Canada
KeywordsHazardDuration (music)Space (punctuation)BusinessHazard modelDistribution (mathematics)Risk analysis (engineering)Transport engineeringOperations researchEconometricsComputer scienceEconomicsActuarial scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Firm mobility is one of the processes a firm can go through during its time of operation. When aggregated, the mobility decisions of numerous individual firms affect the spatial distribution of economic activity and employment as well as the outputs of the transportation system in urban areas. Models of mobility of office business establishments that use hazard modeling and competing risk formulations are presented. These formulations explicitly account for the effect of the duration of the firm in its current location as well as forecast what type of stress or push factor (e.g., lack of space or excessive cost in its current location) will make the firm relocate. The results indicate that combining general hazard modeling with competing risk models could provide a foundation for modeling mobility decisions of firms as well as for estimating thresholds for the locations to which the firm may choose to move.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.003

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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.100 · 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicRegional Economics and Spatial AnalysisFrench-language works237,207