MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326864401 · doi:10.1139/l11-015

Commuting mode choice in the context of travel demand management (TDM) policies: an empirical investigation in Edmonton, Alberta

2011· article· en· W2326864401 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Hamid Zaman, Khandker Nurul Habib

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCarpoolMode choiceTransport engineeringDemand managementContext (archaeology)Public transportNested logitTravel behaviorSustainabilityBusinessOperations researchEngineeringEconomicsEconometricsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Travel demand management (TDM) for achieving sustainability is now considered one of the most important aspects of transportation planning and operation. It is now a well known fact that excessive use of private car results inefficient travel behaviour. So, from the TDM perspective, it is of great importance to analyze travel behaviour for improving our understanding on how to influence people to reduce car use and choose more sustainable modes such as carpool, public transit, park & ride, walk, bike etc. This study attempts an in-depth analysis of commuting mode choice behaviour using a week-long commuter survey data set collected in the City of Edmonton. Using error correlated nested logit model for panel data, this study investigates sensitivities of various factors including some specific TDM policies such as flexible office hours, compressed work week etc. Results of the investigation provide profound understanding and guidelines for designing effective TDM 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 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)0.002
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207