MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cap-and-trade scheme for ridesharing

2020· article· en· W3117821862 on OpenAlexaff
Uroš Kalabić, Michael Chiu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories
KeywordsScheme (mathematics)LimitingMarginal costSocial costService (business)Limit (mathematics)Computer scienceBusinessBalance (ability)Set (abstract data type)MicroeconomicsEconomicsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a cap-and-trade scheme for the regulation of ridesharing. As opposed to marginal-pricing schemes, cap-and-trade schemes limit the quantity of transportation. Recognizing that a central authority may not be able to adequately regulate quantity, we let the quantity be determined according to demand for ridesharing. We use demand to compute the social cost of selfish driving in a virtual world where ridesharing does not exist and set this cost as a limit on the amount of social cost that a transportation network company (TNC) can incur. We perform analysis in the static case to show that our scheme has the effect of incentivizing the positive effects of ridesharing, i.e., carpooling, while limiting its negative effects, e.g., deadheading. We also present and discuss a practical implementation of the scheme. In implementation, the virtual social costs would be issued as credits through a central service and the actual social costs would be issued as debits; a net-positive balance would be imposed by the central service and TNCs could trade credits and debits on the open market.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207