MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210590506 · doi:10.3390/vehicles4010007

Shared Automated Electric Vehicle Prospects for Low Carbon Road Transportation in British Columbia, Canada

2022· article· en· W4210590506 on OpenAlexaffabout
Orhan Atabay, Ned Djilali, Curran Crawford

Bibliographic record

VenueVehicles · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrificationAutomationTransport engineeringEnvironmental economicsElectric vehicleEnergy (signal processing)EngineeringElectricityEconomicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the long-term energy use implications of electrification, automation and sharing of road vehicles in British Columbia, Canada. Energy use is first analyzed for the years 1990–2016 for forward forecasting, and hypothetical scenarios ranging from conservative to disruptive, incorporating various effects of road vehicle electrification, sharing and automation, as well as influences of other technology disruptions, such as online shopping and e-learning are presented and used to project the road transportation energy use in B.C. to 2060. Transportation energy use projections are compared to those of the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER). When considering only the effect of vehicle electrification, the scenarios show higher energy savings compared to CER’s scenarios. The combined impact of vehicle electrification and automation leads to decreased energy use to 2060 for all scenarios considered. The energy savings for all scenarios, except for the conservative one, are higher than CER’s projections. When the effects of vehicle electrification, automation and sharing are merged, all scenarios yield energy savings beyond the CER projections. Inclusion of other technology disruptions and the effects of pandemics like COVID-19 reduce transportation demand and provide further energy savings. The BAU scenario given in this study shows energy use decreases compared to 2016 of 26.3%, 49%, 62.24%, 72.1% for the years 2030, 2040, 2050, and 2060 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVehiclesSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207