MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2565613554 · doi:10.1080/15568318.2016.1266425

Where no cars go: Free-floating carshare and inequality of access

2016· article· en· W2565613554 on OpenAlexaff
Justin Tyndall

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Transportation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveBusinessCensus tractDemographicsTransport engineeringInequalityService providerService (business)CensusMarketingEconomicsEngineeringPopulationEnvironmental healthMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carsharing programs have demonstrated a potential to significantly shift incentives with regard to private vehicle ownership. The advent of free-floating vehicle fleets has enabled providers to offer ubiquitous vehicle access in designated urban areas. The ability of users to choose where to drop off vehicles presents the possibility that the density of available vehicles in particular areas will be insufficient to supply a reasonable level of service to local residents. The current paper will use exclusive data on vehicle location from a free-floating carshare service that operates in ten U.S. cities. Analysis will relate the availability of vehicles to census tract demographics. Results show vehicles cluster in tracts that are disproportionately populated by residents who are educated, young, employed, and white. Carshare systems have received significant in-kind incentives from government to operate. The mobility benefits of free-floating carshare systems appear to accrue disproportionately to advantaged populations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations41
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable TransportationSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207