MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225286404 · doi:10.1155/2022/1710746

Does Policy Matter in Carsharing Traveling? Evolution Game Model-Based Carsharing and Private Car Study

2022· article· en· W4225286404 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wei Luo, Shi Qiu, Pengpeng Jiao, Liya Yao, Yi Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBeijing Postdoctoral Science FoundationChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationBeijing Advanced Innovation Center for Future Urban DesignBeijing University of Civil Engineering and ArchitectureMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsCar sharingMode choiceGovernment (linguistics)Mode (computer interface)Replicator equationProcess (computing)BusinessTransport engineeringComputer scienceIndustrial organizationEngineeringPublic transport

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As an alternative trip mode to the private car, carsharing mode first emerged in Europe in the 1940s. Although it possesses many merits such as convenience, affordability, and comfort, its development is far slower than the private car in recent years. Identifying the factors affecting the users’ choice between carsharing and private car is becoming very important. This paper proposes an evolution game model to explore the competitive choice process between carsharing and private car under different government policies. First, an evolution game model with incomplete information is developed to analyze the travel choice of carsharing over private car. The influences of government policy are taken into consideration. Then, the evolutionary stable strategy solution of the model is derived from replicator dynamics, and a discussion about the stable condition is presented. Finally, a case study is conducted to validate the proposed model. This study provides a rationale for agencies to improve the current carsharing choice rate between carsharing and private car.

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 score0.838
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 head0.241
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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