MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080550557 · doi:10.3390/su12176824

Best–Worst Method for Modelling Mobility Choice after COVID-19: Evidence from Italy

2020· article· en· W3080550557 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Context (archaeology)Resilience (materials science)Mode (computer interface)Computer scienceMode choicePandemic2019-20 coronavirus outbreakOperations researchEnvironmental economicsBusinessGeographyTransport engineeringEconomicsPublic transportEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All countries have suffered from the COVID-19 crisis; the pandemic has adversely impacted all sectors. In this study, we examine the transport sector with a specific focus on the problem of commuting mode choice and propose a new decision-making approach for the alternative modes after synthesizing expert opinions. As a methodology, a customized model of the recently developed best–worst method (BWM) is used to evaluate mobility choice alternatives. The survey reflects citizens’ opinions toward mobility choices in two Italian cities, Palermo and Catania, before and during the pandemic. BWM is a useful tool for examining mobility choice in big cities. The adopted model is easy to apply and capable of providing effective solutions for sustainable mode choice. The urban context is analyzed considering the importance of transport choices, evaluating the variation of resilience to the changing opinions of users.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.321 · 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