Integrating parking behaviour in activity-based travel demand modelling: investigation of the relationship between parking type choice and activity scheduling process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, the parking choice/option is considered to be an important factor in only in the mode choice component of a four-stage travel demand modeling system. However, travel demand modeling has been undergoing a paradigm shift from the traditional trip-based approach to an activity-based approach. The activity-based approach is intended to capture the influences of different policy variables at various stages of activity-travel decision making processes. Parking is a key policy variable that captures land use and transportation interactions in urban areas. Moreover, it is important that the influences of parking choice on activity scheduling behavior other than mode choice behavior be identified. This paper investigates this issue using a sample data set collected in Montreal, Canada. Parking type choice and activity scheduling decisions (start time and duration) are modeled jointly in order to identify the effects of parking type choice on activity scheduling behaviour. Empirical investigation gives strong evidence that parking type choice influences activity scheduling decisions, e.g. activity start-time and duration. The empirical findings of this investigation challenge the validity of the traditional conception which considers mode choice after activity-travel scheduling or tour formation in activity-based travel demand modeling.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".