A joint model of place of residence (POR) and place of work (POW): Making use of Gibbs sampling technique to overcome arbitrary assumptions in contexts of data limitation
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
Place or residence (POR) and place of work (POW) are two spatial pivots defining patterns of travel behavior. These choices are considered part of long-term choice influencing short-term daily travel choices. Hence, POR-POW distributions are input into almost all daily travel demand models. However, in many cases, POW-POR is modelled in an ad-hoc way considering the gravity-based or entropy is maximizing aggregate modelling approach. Lack of data on the sequence of choices related to POR and POW is often blamed for avoiding using disaggregate choice model. Recognizing such data limitation, this paper presents an alternative methodology of modelling joint distribution of POW-POW that uses disaggregate choice models without necessarily knowing the sequence of POR and POW choices. It uses the conditional probability break downs of joint POR-POW choice probabilities as depicted in the Gibbs sampling approach. This allows capturing effects of household socioeconomic characteristics, zonal land-use characteristics, and modal accessibility factors in the POR-POW models. The model is applied for a case study in the city of Ottawa. Results reveal that the proposed methodology can replicate observed patterns of POR-POW with a high degree of accuracy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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