MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196725569 · doi:10.1155/2021/9454873

Exploring Influencing Factors of Intercity Mode Choice from View of Entire Travel Chain

2021· article· en· W3196725569 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaowei Li, Siyu Zhang, Yao Wu, Yuting Wang, Wenbo Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEducation Department of Shaanxi ProvinceNatural Science Foundation of Shaanxi ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPunctualityMultinomial logistic regressionMode choiceMode (computer interface)TicketOddsTravel behaviorEconometricsMultinomial probitPurchasingLogitMixed logitComputer scienceBayesian probabilityDiscrete choiceTransport engineeringLogistic regressionOperations researchStatisticsEconomicsBusinessMarketingEngineeringMathematicsPublic transport

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exploring the influencing factors of intercity travel mode choice can reveal passengers’ travel decision mechanisms and help traffic departments to develop an effective demand management policy. To investigate these factors, a survey was conducted in Xi’an, China, to collect data about passengers’ travel chains, including airplane, high-speed railway (HSR), train, and express bus. A Bayesian mixed multinomial logit model is developed to identify significant factors and explicate unobserved heterogeneity across observations. The effect of significant factors on intercity travel mode choice is quantitatively assessed by the odds ratio (OR) technique. The results show that the Bayesian mixed multinomial logit model outperforms the traditional Bayesian multinomial logit model, indicating that accommodating the unobserved heterogeneity across observations can improve the model fit. The model estimation results show that ticket purchasing method, comfort, punctuality, and access time are random parameters that have heterogeneous effects on intercity travel mode choice.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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