MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3100816347 · doi:10.1155/2020/7436710

An Empirical Analysis for Mode Choice in a Short-Distance Trip with Personal Rapid Transit

2020· article· en· W3100816347 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hyunmyung Kim, Haneum Seok, Soyoung Iris You, Changju Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaKorea Railroad Research InstituteMinistry of Science, ICT and Future PlanningNational Research Foundation
KeywordsTRIPS architectureMode choiceTransport engineeringMode (computer interface)Transit (satellite)Travel behaviorMileComputer sciencePublic transportEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, there have been emerging demands for new transportation modes, such as personal rapid transit (PRT), to improve the connectivity of first and last mile travel. Advancement of ICT and growing concerns over environmental issues reinforce such demands through which specific transportation modes can satisfy the need of each individual for short-distance trips. Although PRT has received particular attention for short-distance trips, it is true that recent approaches have been developed to analyze the behavior of travelers for mid- to long-distance trips that are not relevant for short-distance trips. This study proposed a suitable approach using logistic regression models that could assist the understanding of features which determine mode choice in a short-distance trip. The mode choice for PRT in short-distance trips in this study was based on the data from the survey. After considering various factors, it was apparent that the purpose of the trip together with weather conditions impacted significantly on travelers’ mode choices to PRT in short-distance trips. Additionally, it is expected that this study will play an important initial role in analyzing emerging transportation modes that can more easily respond to new demands for short-distance trips.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.359
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

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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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