MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247226341 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14648433

Factors Influencing the Diffusion of Battery Electric Vehicles in Urban Areas

2021· preprint· en· W4247226341 on OpenAlexaff
Morteza Mashayekhi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInnovation Diffusion and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBattery (electricity)PurchasingElectric vehicleBusinessSet (abstract data type)Battery electric vehicleEnvironmental economicsAutomotive engineeringTransport engineeringMarketingComputer scienceEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purchasing a battery electric vehicle is a type of pro-environmental behavior but the impact of such behavior on the environment becomes significant and beneficial only if a large number of individuals buy it. Therefore, getting battery electric vehicles diffused in a social system is a critical task which needs a special attention from consumers as well as governments and suppliers. This thesis aims to find out all factors influencing the rate of adoption of a battery electric vehicle by using the main constructs and important concepts of theory of diffusion of innovations proposed by Rogers (1962). The results indicate that seven factors influence the rate of adoption of a battery electric vehicle including social pressure, social prestige, usefulness for environment, difficultly of use, price, perceived risk, and knowledge and information about battery electric vehicles. Based on these factors, a road map and a set of policies to accelerate the rate of adoption of battery electric vehicles were proposed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovation Diffusion and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207