A Heteroscedastic Polarized Logit Model to Investigate the Competition of Bicycle for the Bikeable Trips with the Other Modes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper proposes a new discrete choice model, named the Heteroscedastic Polarized Logit (HPL) to investigate choice contexts with one or more alternatives with remarkably low market shares. The proposed model is used to investigate the factors influencing the choice of a bicycle as a travel mode in the National Capital Region (NCR) of Canada. Data from the latest household travel survey of the NCR are used to investigate the mode choices of bikeable trips. Bikeable trips are defined as trips with lengths shorter than 16 km as this is the observed maximum limit of a bicycle trip in the dataset. A large dataset with over 40,000 trip records is used for empirical investigation where the bicycle has the lowest mode share of 3%. The HPL model clearly shows its appropriateness and superiority over comparable models in such a context. The choice to walk is found to be more sensitive to trip length than the choice to cycle, yet walking is found to have three times larger market share than that of cycling. Similarly, motorized modes are found to have low sensitivity to travel time and other impedances and have larger market shares. Women and students are found not to prefer the bicycle as a travel mode. Cycling infrastructure is seen to be effective in increasing the choice of the bicycle as a travel mode, but it also becomes clear that additional soft policy initiatives would be necessary to increase the popularity of cycling among young people, students, and women.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".