MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225259694 · doi:10.1155/2022/5894250

Analyzing Ride-Sourcing Market Equilibrium and Its Transitions with Heterogeneous Users

2022· article· en· W4225259694 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Junlin Zhang, Dong Mo, Xiqun Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPartial equilibriumGeneral equilibrium theoryAggregate (composite)Market analysisMarket shareEconomicsMicroeconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the justification of a comprehensive matching function approach, this study analyzes the ride-sourcing market with heterogeneous users. A single origin-destination (O-D) ride-sourcing market model is first developed. The model fills the major research gap to extend general user heterogeneity modeling from the transit market to the two-sided ride-sourcing market. Sufficient conditions that guarantee a unique market equilibrium are given. Equilibrium market operation with a profit-maximizing platform is explored. Equilibrium transitions with respect to the changes in different exogenous market variables are investigated. Nonequilibrium modeling to understand the transition path is also analyzed, revealing how the detailed transition evolves. Extensions of the single O-D market model to aggregate and disaggregate markets and incorporation of travel time reliability are briefly discussed. Numerical experiments, which are based on real-world data in the city of Ningbo, China, and cover an aggregate/single O-D base case, sensitivity analysis, equilibrium transitions, and disaggregate market equilibrium, are presented to illustrate the theoretical model. The larger network of Sioux Falls is also tested as a demonstration of the disaggregate market equilibrium. Discussions are made regarding operation and policy implications.

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 score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207