Predicting the Potential Market for Electric Vehicles
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forecasting the potential demand for electric vehicles is a challenging task. Because most studies for new technologies rely on stated preference (SP) data, market share predictions will reflect shares in the SP data and not in the real market. Moreover, typical disaggregate demand models are suitable to forecast demand in relatively stable markets, but show limitations in the case of innovations. When predicting the market for new products it is crucial to account for the role played by innovation and how it penetrates the new market over time through a diffusion process. However, typical diffusion models in marketing research use fairly simple demand models. In this paper we discuss the problem of predicting market shares for new products and suggest a method that combines advanced choice models with a diffusion model to take into account that new products often need time to gain a significant market share. We have the advantage of a relatively unique databank where respondents were submitted to the same stated choice experiment before and after experiencing an electric vehicle. Results show that typical choice models forecast a demand that is too restrictive in the long period. Accounting for the diffusion effect, instead allows predicting the usual slow penetration of a new product in the initial years after product launch and a faster market share increase after diffusion takes place.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it