MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022134981 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2019-0599

Modeling commercial vehicle trip generation at the business-establishment level

2020· article· en· W3022134981 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Georgiana Madar, Hanna Maoh, Kevin Gingerich

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban and Freight Transport Logistics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMicrodata (statistics)TRIPS architectureCommercial vehicleComputer scienceWindsorSample (material)Transport engineeringEconometricsAutomotive industryData collectionOperations researchBusinessEngineeringEconomicsStatisticsMathematicsCensusAutomotive engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The planning and design of efficient transportation systems require an in-depth understanding of the micro-behaviour governing vehicle movements. Recent efforts to analyze commercial vehicle movements have begun focusing on the collection and usage of detailed microdata sets. This paper contributes to these efforts by devising statistical models for predicting the number of outbound commercial vehicle trips at the firm level given a sample of establishments in the Windsor, Ontario region. A comparison was made between a model that can be created using microdata obtained through an establishment survey, a model that utilized commercial firm lists with basic firm attributes that include employment size and industry classification, and a modified model with the basic variables and limited detailed microdata. The results suggest that commercial firm datasets can be used to generate reasonable predictions. However, additional information about employment, industry, vehicle ownership and other firm characteristics certainly enhance the models’ predictive ability.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.114 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicUrban and Freight Transport LogisticsFrench-language works237,207