Comparison of updating techniques in transferability analysis of work trip mode choice models in developing countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study analyzes the performances of updating techniques in transferability of mode choice models in developing countries. A model specification, estimated in Ho Chi Minh City, was transferred to Phnom Penh. Naïve transfer and four updating methods associated with small sized samples were used in the transfer process and were evaluated based on statistical perspective and predictive ability. The study also illustrates the problems faced in model transferability development, due to the lack of available and suitable data in Phnom Penh. This lack is strongly related to different methods and structures applied in collecting the data. Simplified approaches to the difficulties are proposed in the study. The results show that updating ASCs, updating both ASCs and scale parameter, and use of combined transfer estimators all produce significant improvement, both statistically and in predictability, in updating the model. The last two methods have proven to be superior to the first method, owing to the inclusion of transfer bias considerations in the estimations. However, small data samples should not have large transfer bias when using combined transfer estimators. It is also concluded that naïvely transferring a model is not recommended, and Bayesian updating should be avoided when transfer bias exists. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".