MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092266739 · doi:10.1177/0361198120953797

Finding the Subway Disruption Regimes of Switching Subway to Uber in Toronto

2020· article· en· W3092266739 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jason Hawkins, Khandker Nurul Habib

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTRIPS architecturePublic transportService (business)Transport engineeringTransit (satellite)Government (linguistics)CommissionBusinessEngineeringMarketingFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolving relationship between public transit and transportation network companies (TNCs), such as Uber and Lyft, is of great interest to government agencies and has seen much critical attention in the academic literature. In this paper, we focus on the demand for TNC trips (also known as ride-hailing trips) during the disruption of the subway service. We combined a detailed dataset of Uber trips made in Toronto, Canada during the period September 2016 to August 2018 and subway disruption data provided by the Toronto Transit Commission. These data were used to examine the question: how long are subway users willing to wait during a disruption before switching modes? This question was framed as a threshold point, and an innovative structural threshold regression model was used to obtain an answer. Controlling for environmental and location-specific factors in the model, it was revealed that subway users in Toronto tend to switch to Uber after a service delay of as little as 3 min, with an average result of 7 min and an upper bound of 12 min.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207