Survey Data Analysis on Intention to Use Shared Mobility Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shared mobility is a service that allows users to share various transportation modes and use them with reservations when necessary. It started with private automotive car-sharing and ride-sharing services. Currently, it operates on a wider range, including personal mobility devices such as electric bicycles and scooters. The purpose of this study is to derive a direction for providing future shared mobility services through analysis of factors affecting the usage intention of both current and prospective users. The survey targets 753 citizens living in Gyeonggi Province, Korea. The survey period is from February 12, 2020, to February 26, 2020. In this study, a logistic regression analysis is conducted to investigate the factors affecting the use intention of shared mobility. The analysis results show that gender, car ownership, and education, among variables reflecting socio-demographic characteristics, have significant effects on intention to use shared mobility. Moreover, we find that experience factors, including mainly used transportation modes, ownership of shared mobility device, past experience in similar services, satisfaction of existing shared mobility services, and distance from the home to the nearest bus stop, are also statistically influential. The analysis results are expected to lay the foundation for the introduction of shared mobility services and can be used as data for planning smart mobility services in the future.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".