MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609894571 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.04683

On the Factors Influencing the Choices of Weekly Telecommuting Frequencies of Post-secondary Students in Toronto

2020· article· en· W2609894571 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Khandker Nurul Habib, Ph. D., Peng

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MIMO Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelecommutingPsychologyWork (physics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents an empirical investigation of telecommuting frequency choices by post-secondary students in Toronto. It uses a dataset collected through a large-scale travel survey conducted on post-secondary students of four major universities in Toronto and it employs multiple alternative econometric modelling techniques for the empirical investigation. Results contribute on two fronts. Firstly, it presents empirical investigations of factors affecting telecommuting frequency choices of post-secondary students that are rare in literature. Secondly, it identifies better a performing econometric modelling technique for modelling telecommuting frequency choices. Empirical investigation clearly reveals that telecommuting for school related activities is prevalent among post-secondary students in Toronto. Around 80 percent of 0.18 million of the post-secondary students of the region, who make roughly 36,000 trips per day, also telecommute at least once a week. Considering that large numbers of students need to spend a long time travelling from home to campus with around 33 percent spending more than two hours a day on travelling, telecommuting has potential to enhance their quality of life. Empirical investigations reveal that car ownership and living farther from the campus have similar positive effects on the choice of higher frequency of telecommuting. Students who use a bicycle for regular travel are least likely to telecommute, compared to those using transit or a private car.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAdvanced MIMO Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207