MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163968342 · doi:10.3141/1702-04

Evaluating Carsharing Benefits

2000· article· en· W2163968342 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsTransport Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessIncentiveCar ownershipRentingService (business)Transport engineeringPublic transportMarketingEconomicsEngineeringMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carsharing is an automobile-rental service intended as a substitute for private-vehicle ownership. Carsharing emphasizes affordability and convenience. Vehicles are located near residences, rented by the hour, and require minimal effort to check in and check out. Carsharing services are common in some European countries and are increasingly common in North America. Carsharing gives consumers a practical alternative to owning a personal vehicle that is driven fewer than 10 000 km (6,000 mi)/year. Carsharing has lower fixed costs and higher variable costs than private-vehicle ownership. This price structure makes occasional use of a vehicle affordable, even to low-income households. It also gives drivers an incentive to minimize their vehicle use and to rely on other travel options as much as possible. Carsharing typically reduces average vehicle use by 40 to 60 percent among drivers who rely on it, making it an important transportation demand-management strategy. Despite these benefits, the use of carsharing is growing slowly and will need to overcome several barriers to achieve its full potential.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.246 · 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