Commuter Departure Time Choice Considering Parking Space Shortage and Commuter’s Bounded Rationality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to better understand how commuters decide departure time considering parking space shortage and commuters’ bounded rationality, the reference point hypothesis of prospect theory is applied in the departure time decision-making. Commuter personal perception differences, the road congestion situation, destination parking status, and other factors were also analysed in the influence of commuter departure time choice. Based on prospect theory, an experiment was designed to investigate the intention of the commuter departure time choice. The experiment results show that the commuter’s travel satisfaction and the departure time choice of the next trip are related to the parking space residual status after the commuter arrives at the destination. The satisfaction degree of the commuter is reduced, with the decrease of the remaining parking spaces. If the commuter is satisfied with the travel result, the commuter’s departure time of next trip tends to be later. In the case of illegal parking, different penalty measures may lead to different decisions of next departure time choice. A commuter tends to depart earlier when more severe punishment for illegal parking is enforced. The research results can reveal to some degree the travellers’ departure time choice behaviour when they face the risk of no parking spaces and provide a theoretical and practical support for parking management and car travelling decision.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it