Unit of analysis in conventional trip generation modelling: an investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the importance of the unit of analysis selected for trip generation modelling when the model estimation data are collected in a household travel survey. The paper reviews the literature on the arguments made for the use of the "individual" or the "household" as the unit of analysis in trip production modelling, and then through a statistical exposition it determines what should be the appropriate unit of analysis. An empirical test of the forecast performance of household- and person-trip generation models is conducted using data collected in a household-travel-behaviour survey in the Greater Toronto Area of Canada. The paper concludes that the household is theoretically the preferable analysis unit to use in trip production modelling when the model estimation data are collected in a household travel survey in which the household is the sampling unit. The empirical test indicates that household-trip generation models yield predictions of trips at the household and traffic zone level, respectively, that are marginally more accurate than those yielded by person-trip generation models.Key words: trip generation, travel demand forecasting, household trip generation, person trip generation, sampling unit, travel demand modeling, activity-based travel forecasting.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".