MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110711310 · doi:10.1177/0361198120969368

Mobility-as-a-Service and Demand-Responsive Transport: Practical Implementation in Traditional Forecasting Models

2020· article· en· W3110711310 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pedro Camargo, Erin Pammenter, Aliasgar Inayathusein

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolitan areaOccupancyTransport engineeringService (business)Urban transitTransit (satellite)Computer scienceTransit systemAsideDemand forecastingLevel of servicePublic transportOperations researchBusinessEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing effect of Transport Network Companies (TNCs) in major US cities, allied to the expectation that connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) will become the prevailing type of automobile on the streets in the coming decades, requires such a trend to be reflected in our forecasting models. Yet, most of the efforts undertaken in the United States and elsewhere are largely focused on understanding the demand for such types of transportation and have left aside the analysis of crucial differences in envisaged systems, such as pooled versus single-occupancy vehicles, use of CAVs as access modes to mass transit, and the cost corresponding to different levels of service in citywide systems. In this paper we introduce a new algorithm for modeling pooled CAVs and a framework for integrating this into traditional forecasting models. We also present the preliminary results of an application of the proposed methodology to the metropolitan region of Vancouver, British Columbia. The results are promising, although a few implementation choices made for this study have resulted in poor computational performance.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.173 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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