MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3004002266 · doi:10.1155/2020/3654130

Exploring the Factors Associated with Car Use for Short Trips: Evidence from Kunming, China

2020· article· en· W3004002266 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mingwei He, Yi Fei, Min He

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTRIPS architectureStructural equation modelingChinaTransport engineeringTravel behaviorCyclingPsychologyKilometerBusinessEngineeringGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to explore the factors associated with car use for short trips. Using the data collected from a travel survey conducted with car users in Kunming, the structural equation model is employed to explore the structural relationships between car use for short trips, attitudes toward cars and alternative travel modes, sociodemographics, and the built environment. The results show that instrumental and symbolic attitudes toward cars are positively related to the affective attitude, and these three attitudes have a significant effect on car use for short trips. The symbolic attitude of drivers is negatively associated with their walking and cycling attitudes. Drivers with a better cycling attitude use a car less frequently for short trips. Concurrently, the effects of sociodemographics and the built environment on the attitudes and car use for short trips are also identified. The findings may contribute to understanding the car use behavior and help policy makers to identify methods for reducing car use more clearly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.144 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced Transportation→Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→