MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180931089 · doi:10.1155/2021/5597694

The Effects of Multitasking and Tools Carried by Travelers Onboard on the Perceived Trip Time

2021· article· en· W3180931089 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jamil Hamadneh, Domokos Esztergár‐Kiss

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespondentHuman multitaskingTransport engineeringMultivariate analysis of variancePerceptionExploratory factor analysisTravel behaviorBeijingTravel surveySample (material)Applied psychologyComputer scienceEngineeringPsychologyChinaGeographyStatisticsMathematicsStructural equation modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Travelers conduct onboard activities while using the tools they bring with them onboard to convert part of their travel time to a productive time. Productive travel time contributes to the reduction in the disutility of travel time. This paper discusses the influence of travelers’ onboard activities and the tools carried by travelers on the perceived trip time. 10 onboard activities and 12 tools carried by travelers are introduced and studied in this work. A questionnaire focusing on the main trip of each respondent in urban areas is conducted, where a sample size of 525 participants is collected. Statistical methods such as central tendency, chi-square, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), rank-based nonparametric test, and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) are applied. The main findings are the following: almost all of the onboard activities and the tools carried by travelers impact the trip time positively (i.e., the perception is enhanced). For each transport mode, the most frequent onboard activities that impact the trip time positively is obtained, and the connection between each onboard activity and each tool carried by travelers is found (i.e., moderate to strong association). EFA uncovers the underlying relationship between those onboard activities and those tools carried by travelers that influence travelers’ perception. In this case, instead of the full list, fewer onboard activities and tools carried by travelers are produced to simplify the finding of their impacts on the perceived trip time. The participation in onboard activity is ranked across certain groups, such as the tendency of women to be engaged in onboard activities is higher than men’s tendency. Regarding the positive impact on trip time, a statistical difference is demonstrated between groups, where the use of the tools carried by travelers is varied across the transport mode, trip purpose, and trip time, gender, age, education, and job variable. Besides, the involvement in onboard activities is statistically dependent across the transport mode, gender, income, and car ownership variable. The output of this study helps decision-makers and mobility planners in understanding the behavior of travelers onboard in more detail, such as the availability of onboard tools affecting the choice of transport mode.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207