Understanding the Effect of an E-Hailing App Subsidy War on Taxicab Operation Zones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding taxicab operation behaviors under various management or market policies (i.e., subsidies) is critical to making informed operating decisions for e-hailing companies and for government surveillance. This paper investigates the change of taxicab operation zones in context of an e-hailing app subsidy war in China, which is an important perspective that reflects changes in taxicab behavior, such as how the operation zones of taxicabs under the e-hailing app subsidy war change and how this change affects their trip distance and cruising time. To investigate this issue, this paper utilizes three indexes to elucidate the change of taxicab operation zones, namely, the repetition ratio of operation zone pairs, the area, and the degree of dispersion in the spatial distribution. A case study using taxicab trajectories during all of the important periods of the e-hailing app subsidy war in Shenzhen, China, was conducted and produced several valuable findings; for example, with respect to taxicabs as a whole, the proportion of habitual operation zone pairs among operation zone pairs in neighboring periods is relatively stable under any subsidy policy, and changes in the operation zones have little effect on changes in the average daily trip distance and average daily cruising time. Four groups of taxicabs divided according to initial change patterns in the operation zones present different change patterns during the subsidy war. By comparing these changes before and after the subsidy war, this paper finds that the subsidy war influences the taxicabs in groups I and II, while it has little influence on the taxicabs in groups III and IV, although all groups were affected during the subsidy war. For the taxicab groups in the period with the highest subsidy, the average daily trip distance and average daily cruising time decreased, whereas, in other periods, they presented different patterns.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".