Using the Theory of Planned Behavior to Understand Traffic Violation Behaviors in E-Bike Couriers in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper identifies salient beliefs that influence e-bike couriers’ traffic violation behavior based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB). Two surveys were conducted in Nanjing, China, in 2018. The first survey extracted the key psychological beliefs, which were used to design a questionnaire. The second survey assessed TPB components and reported e-bike couriers’ traffic violation behavior. A structural equation model was adopted to analyze the data. The results revealed that attitudes, descriptive norms, and perceived behavioral control explained 55.7% of the variance in intention to perform traffic violation behavior, and intentions together with perceived behavior control accounted for 28.5% of the variance in self-reported violation riding behavior. All of the belief composites had strong direct impacts on their respective TPB constructs. Salient beliefs were applied to develop effective intervention strategies. Age, education level, whether one possessed a driver’s license, and past traffic violation behaviors had significant effects on belief composites and behavior. The quantitative analysis results obtained in the study can provide theoretical support for designing more effective interventions for reducing the traffic violation rate of e-bike couriers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".