MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184986741 · doi:10.1155/2021/6672961

Revisiting the Benefits of Combining Data of a Different Nature: Strategic Forecasting of New Mode Alternatives

2021· article· en· W3184986741 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Luis A. Guzmán, Julián Arellana, Victor A. Cantillo-Garcia, Juan de Dios Ortúzar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstituto de Sistemas Complejos de IngenieríaAgencia Nacional de Investigación y DesarrolloVolvo Research and Educational Foundations
KeywordsMode (computer interface)Computer scienceOperations researchPreferenceSurvey data collectionService (business)Data scienceBusinessEconomicsEngineeringMarketingMicroeconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We revisit the practice of combining revealed (RP) and stated preference (SP) data (i.e., the data enrichment, DE, paradigm) in discrete choice models using secondary data obtained from emerging sources; these facilitate access to massive information about travel choices and can be used to improve transport models. Even though the benefits of the DE paradigm have been known for years, there is a large gap between the state of practice and the state of the art, particularly in Global South countries (but also in many industrialized nations). We use a SP dataset considering two new transport alternatives (train and metro) and a RP dataset based on a large mobility survey in Bogotá, Colombia, complemented with fairly precise level-of-service data obtained using GIS utilities and the Distance Matrix API by Google. Our results allow us to discuss good practice, identify barriers and challenges to the paradigm’s application, and draw recommendations for forecasting the demand for new alternatives using joint RP and SP data.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.270 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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