MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896303491 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0208309

Accommodating exogenous variable and decision rule heterogeneity in discrete choice models: Application to bicyclist route choice

2018· article· en· W2896303491 on OpenAlexaff
Bibhas Kumar Dey, Sabreena Anowar, Naveen Eluru, Marianne Hatzopoulou

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegretDiscrete choiceProbabilistic logicPreferenceEconometricsPopulationVariable (mathematics)Computer scienceDecision ruleOperations researchStatisticsEconomicsMathematicsMachine learningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proposed research contributes to our understanding of incorporating heterogeneity in discrete choice models with respect to exogenous variables and decision rules. Specifically, the proposed latent segmentation based mixed models segment population to different classes with their own decision rules while also incorporating unobserved heterogeneity within the segment level models. In our analysis, we choose to consider both random utility and random regret theories. Further, instead of assuming the number of segments (as 2), we conduct an exhaustive exploration with multiple segments across the two decision rules. The model estimation is conducted using a stated preference data from 695 commuter cyclists compiled through a web-based survey. The probabilistic allocation of respondents to different segments indicates that female commuter cyclists are more utility oriented; however, the majority of the commuter cyclist's choice pattern is consistent with regret minimization mechanism. Overall, cyclists' route choice decisions are influenced by roadway attributes, cycling infrastructure availability, pollution exposure, and travel time. The analysis approach also allows us to investigate time based trade-offs across cyclists belonging to different classes. Interestingly, we observe that the trade-off values in regret and utility based segments for roadway attributes are similar in magnitude; but the values differ greatly for cycling infrastructure and pollution exposure attributes, particularly for maximum exposure levels.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.107 · 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

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207