Taxi Tipping in New York City (2014-2017): Reciprocity in Hailed vs. Dispatched Cab Fares
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study evaluated the extent to which reciprocity (equity) theory could explain differential levels of tipping in New York taxi fares. From 2014 to 2017, the database recorded 73 million cab fares; however, only credit transactions (i.e., recording patrons’ tips) were included (28 million fares). Based on a reciprocity hypothesis, patrons in cabs hailed randomly off the street were expected to tip more compared to patrons who arranged travel at a dispatch centre. An analysis of covariance for each of the four years supported this, wherein patrons in hailed cabs tipped twice the percentage (14%) than patrons in dispatched cabs (7%); these results were confirmed using equivalent procedures that assumed neither normality nor variance homogeneity. Several limitations are discussed, as are directions for future research. Keywords: reciprocity, tipping, equity, genuine intention, taxi
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".