MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912586992 · doi:10.3968/10723

The Implementation and Welfare Effect of Vehicle Quantity Regulation Policy: A Case Study of Beijing Vehicle Quota System

2018· article· en· W2912586992 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hanying Qi

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeijingLicenseWelfareControl (management)BusinessTraffic congestionPublic transportPublic policyGovernment (linguistics)Transport engineeringIntervention (counseling)Public economicsPolicy analysisEconomicsEconomic growthEngineeringPublic administrationComputer scienceMarket economyChinaPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quantity regulation of license plates for small passenger cars is a typical public policy of government intervention in transportation market. The goal of the policy is to control the number of vehicles in a region, with the main purpose of controlling the growth rate of small passenger cars and reduce traffic congestion. This paper takes Beijing as an example to analyze the implementation effect and welfare effect of the vehicle quantity regulation. The analysis results show that the policy implementation is different from Singapore. It can control the rapid growth of small passenger cars in a city from a macro perspective, but it cannot control the growth of vehicles on the road for a city, so it is limited to reduce traffic congestion. On the other hand, the policy of controlling the number of small passenger cars will bring a series of welfare losses. In this regard, this paper puts forward suggestions of improving policy design, increasing supporting policy measures, strengthening urban public transport construction and changing residents’ travel mode to enhance the implementation effect of the 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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207