MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3051511610 · doi:10.3390/su12176727

Dynamic Pricing on Round-Trip Carsharing Services: Travel Behavior and Equity Impact Analysis through an Agent-Based Simulation

2020· article· en· W3051511610 on OpenAlexaff
Giulio Giorgione, Francesco Ciari, Francesco Viti

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersFonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg
KeywordsEquity (law)Mode choiceDynamic pricingService (business)Mode (computer interface)BusinessMicroeconomicsEnvironmental economicsOperations researchTransport engineeringComputer scienceEconomicsMarketingPublic transportEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carsharing companies can customize their service by adopting different pricing schemes and offers with the goal of increasing service attractivity, fleet usage and profits. Dynamic pricing strategies can be designed to adjust and balance cars’ availability temporally and spatially; they may pose some questions regarding customer equity, since such measures could impact their activities and mode choice. In this paper, we develop an experimental design for conducting an explorative analysis of how availability-based and time-based dynamic pricing schemes impact demand and supply performances. The strategy is simulated in the open-source agent-based software MATSim and compared to a fixed pricing policy scheme. Two spatial distributions of the value of time for the population of Berlin are applied (radially and coaxially) to systematically analyze agents’ behavior response to these pricing policies. Results confirm that when dynamic pricing is applied people with low value of time tend to abandon the carsharing mode in favor of other modes of transportation. Overall, the strategy applied in this study appears to be unfair, since it hinders low income groups from using the carsharing service.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 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

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207