Modeling Freight Vehicle Type Choice using Machine Learning and Discrete Choice Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The choice of vehicle type is one of the important logistics decisions made by firms. The complex nature of the choice process is because of the involvement of multiple agents. This study employs a random forest machine learning algorithm to represent these complex interactions with limited information about shipment transportation. The data are from Commercial Travel Surveys with information about outbound shipment transportation. This study models the choice among four road transport vehicle types: pickup/cube van, single-unit truck, tractor trailer, and passenger car. The characteristics of firms and shipments are used as explanatory variables. SHAP-based variable importance is calculated to interpret the importance of each variable, and shows that employment and weight are the most important variables in determining the choice of vehicle type. The random forest model is also compared with the multinomial and mixed logit models. The model prediction results on the validation data are compared. The results show that random forest model outperforms both the multinomial and mixed logit model with an overall increase in accuracy of about 7.8% and 9.6%, respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".