MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2182250527

WHO RIDES AND WHO PAYS: A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF MOTORCYCLING IN THE UNITED STATES

2013· article· en· W2182250527 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel J. Fagnant, Brice Nichols, Kara M. Kockelman, William J. Murray, E. Cockrell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruckMileTransport engineeringRecreationOccupancyQuarter (Canadian coin)EngineeringBusinessAutomotive engineeringGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper offers a comprehensive assessment of the benefits and costs of motorcycle use while exploring the characteristics, behaviors and attitudes of motorcycle riders. U.S. motorcyclists are at relatively high risk of crashing, per mile travelled, with rates 24 times higher than those of passenger car and light-duty truck drivers. However, motorcycles require just one quarter the parking space of a car, and can double network capacities (in terms of vehicles per hour), thereby reducing congestion. While most motorcycles enjoy high fuel economy, their low seating capacities render them little or no better than most cars and some light-duty trucks (assuming average vehicle occupancies). They emit relatively fewer grams of CO2, NOx, SO2 and PM10 per person-mile traveled than most cars, but more VOC and CO, if a catalytic converter is not installed. Noise impacts are also a serious issue for many motorcycles, with an inconsistent patchwork of regulations applied across states and localities. Results of a survey of current and former U.S. motorcyclists indicates almost use their motorcycles for recreational purposes and ride in groups, though about half also ride for more

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTraffic and Road Safety→French-language works237,207→