MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805323621

Who wants zero-emissions vehicles and why? Assessing the Mainstream market potential in Canada using stated response methods

2018· article· en· W2805323621 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Zoe Long

Bibliographic record

VenueSummit (Simon Fraser University) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle emissions and performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSFU Community Trust Endowment FundSimon Fraser UniversityPacific Institute for Climate Solutions
KeywordsZero (linguistics)MainstreamEconomicsComputer scienceEconometricsBusinessPolitical scienceLawPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extensive deployment of zero-emissions vehicles (ZEVs) is likely essential for Canada to achieve its greenhouse gas reduction targets, including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs). To effectively promote ZEVs, it is critical to understand the factors that influence consumer interest in ZEVs. In this study, I surveyed 2,123 Canadians that intend to buy new vehicles to develop insights into “latent demand” among consumers, (that is, what demand would be if the ZEVs were fully available in the market), including ZEV-related preferences and possible underlying motivations for interest. Specifically, I analyze results from two stated response methods: design exercises and a stated choice experiment. First, the design exercises reveal that 21% of respondents are interested in ZEVs (a proxy for latent demand), where interest is primarily in PHEVs, followed by BEVs and HFCVs. ZEV-interested respondents tend to be younger and have higher education and income levels, and are also unique in measures of lifestyle engagement, values, and environmental concern. The design exercises also revealed that HFCV-interested respondents are distinct from PHEV- and BEV-interested respondents in their values and possible underlying motivations. Using data from the stated choice experiment, I estimated a latent class discrete choice model, and identified five unique respondent segments. Thirty-six percent of respondents fall probabilistically into segments which have strong preferences for ZEVs, 20% of respondents are undecided about ZEVs but remain open to them, and 44% of respondents prefer conventionally fueled vehicles. The latent class model indicates that respondents who prefer ZEVs are younger and have higher education levels, and have greater environmental concern, more environmental-oriented lifestyles, and stronger pro-social values. Results from this study indicate that financial subsidies and home recharging could be effective in increasing latent demand. Policy makers would be wise to consider the range of preferences and possible motives for ZEV interest when designing ZEV-supportive policy.

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 score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSummit (Simon Fraser University)Same topicVehicle emissions and performanceFrench-language works237,207