The impact of transport pricing policy on individual energy consumption: a modeling case study in Kumamoto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary To investigate the impact of traffic pricing policies on energy consumption, this study shows a microeconomic quantitative analysis scheme to simulate individual consumption behaviors from a microeconomic viewpoint. Energy consumption is estimated based on individual demand of non‐mobility goods and mobility goods under nine policy scenarios based on strategies of gasoline tax adding and mass transit fare reduction independently or combined. Results show that gasoline tax adding has strong effects on consumption behaviors. Energy consumption reduces mostly because of less consumption of non‐mobility goods and car trips. However, policy of mass transit fare reduction has limited impact on energy saving because consumption of non‐mobility goods and mass transit trips increases, but the number of car trips decline by only a small percentage. Comparing with single‐type policy, policies that combined gasoline tax adding and mass transit fare reduction show less energy consumption. Findings suggest that policies that increase cost of car trips, such as gasoline tax adding, are very helpful to reduce the consumption of non‐mobility goods and car trips, which contribute to less energy consumption. However, reducing cost of mass transit trips suggests limited effect on energy saving. Copyright © 2015 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".