Joint Model of Weekend Discretionary Activity Participation and Episode Duration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on travel demand modeling has primarily focused on weekday activity–travel patterns. However, weekend activities and travel constitute a major component of individuals’ overall weekly activity–travel participation. This paper describes a modeling effort that focuses on weekend activity–travel demand for discretionary events. This study bridges the gap in the literature by modeling participation in discretionary types of events, the duration of participation, and accompaniment type jointly in a simultaneous equations model system. A joint discrete–continuous modeling framework is formulated for analysis of these dimensions as a choice bundle. Specifically, the combination of event type and accompaniment type constitutes the discrete component, whereas the duration of participation constitutes the continuous component. The model uses a copula-based sample selection approach that ties the discrete choice error component with the duration error component in a flexible manner. The data used in the paper are drawn from the 2008–2009 National Household Travel Survey sample of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area in Arizona. The results from the estimation process highlight the presence of sample selection in the joint modeling context. Furthermore, the results also highlight the flexibility of copula models in capturing such sample selection. The best copula model results are used to generate hazard profiles for various alternative related duration intervals. The generated profiles highlight the inaccurate predictions obtained by the use of approaches that ignore the presence of sample selection.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".