MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inferring social influence in transport mode choice using mobile phone data

2017· article· en· W2626890125 on OpenAlexaff
Santi Phithakkitnukoon, Titipat Sukhvibul, Merkebe Getachew Demissie, Zbigniew Smoreda, Juggapong Natwichai, Carlos Bento

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Data Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersThailand Research Fund
KeywordsInterpersonal tiesMode (computer interface)Public transportMobile phoneMode choicePhoneSocial network (sociolinguistics)Computer scienceSocial psychologyPsychologyTelecommunicationsTransport engineeringEngineeringSocial mediaHuman–computer interactionWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A longitudinal mobile phone data that include both location and communication logs is analyzed to infer social influence in terms of ego-network effect in the commute mode choice. The results show that person’s strong ties are more important to determine if driving is the person’s transport mode choice, whereas weak ties are more important to determine if public transit is the person’s choice. It is also evident from the results that social ties that are geographically closer are more influential for the commute mode choice than the ones who are farther away. For public transit, access distance is also one of the influential factors. The portion of transit users decreases as the access distance becomes larger. Moreover, social network is shown to influence the commute mode choice, as the likelihood of choosing a particular mode choice rises with the portion of social ties choosing that specific mode.

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)0.008
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations72
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPJ Data ScienceSame topicHuman Mobility and Location-Based AnalysisFrench-language works237,207