MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2595829551 · doi:10.1155/2017/2619810

Modeling and Analyzing Taxi Congestion Premium in Congested Cities

2017· article· en· W2595829551 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Changwei Yuan, Dayong Wu, Dali Wei, Hongchao Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFok Ying Tong Education FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBeijingCongestion pricingTraffic congestionSupply and demandSingapore Area Licensing SchemeTransport engineeringEconomicsMicroeconomicsEngineeringChina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traffic congestion is a significant problem in many major cities. Getting stuck in traffic, the mileage per unit time that a taxicab travels will decline significantly. Congestion premium (or so-called low-speed fare) has become an increasingly important income source for taxi drivers. However, the impact of congestion premium on the taxicab market is not widely understood yet. In particular, modeling and analyzing of the taxi fare structure with congestion premium are extremely limited. In this paper, we developed a taxi price equilibrium model, in which the adjustment mechanism of congestion premium on optimizing the taxi driver’s income, balancing the supply and demand, and eventually improving the level of service in the whole taxicab market was investigated. In the final part, we provided a case study to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed model. The results indicated that the current taxi fare scheme in Beijing is suboptimal, since the gain from the raise of congestion premium cannot compensate for the loss from the demand reduction. Conversely, the optimal fare scheme suggested by our model can effectively reduce the excessive demand and reach the supply-demand equilibrium, while keeping the stability of the driver’s income to the maximum extent.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207