MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296239200

Application of RP/SP Data to the Joint Estimation of Mode Choice Models: Lessons Learned from an Empirical Investigation into Cross-Regional Commuting Trips in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area

2016· article· en· W2296239200 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohamed S. Mahmoud, Khandker Nurul Habib, Amer Shalaby

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 95th Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMode choiceMultinomial logistic regressionTRIPS architectureRevealed preferenceEconometricsNested logitChoice setEstimationMode (computer interface)LogitDiscrete choiceEconomicsRegional scienceComputer scienceOperations researchGeographyTransport engineeringStatisticsMathematicsPublic transportEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents an investigation on the mode choice behaviour of cross-regional commuters in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). Cross-regional trips are defined as those crossing the boundaries of two or more municipal or regional jurisdictions, each served by a local transit operator. The GTHA has nine local transit and one regional transit systems with little or no coordination between them. The complexity of cross-regional trips stems from the multimodal nature of long distance travel across multiple regional/local municipalities. Using Revealed Preference (RP) and Stated Preference (SP) data of the Survey of Cross-Regional Intermodal Passenger Travel (SCRIPT), a set of econometric joint RP/SP mode choice models are developed. This paper presents a comparison between a conventional Multinomial Logit (MNL) mode choice model and two models that relax the independent and irrelevant alternative (IIA) assumption, namely Nested Logit (NL) and Parameterized Logit Captivity (PLC) models. The joint RP/SP models reveal meaningful insights into cross-regional commuters’ mode choice behaviour. The developed models now constitute the core of a policy analysis tool, called Interactive Model for Policy Analysis of Cross-Regional Travel (IMPACT), which predicts changes in aggregate modal shares in response to new policies.

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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.329
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 95th Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207