MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247802446 · doi:10.1504/ijsom.2020.104333

Carsharing customer demand forecasting using causal, time series and neural network methods: a case study

2020· article· en· W4247802446 on OpenAlexaff
Elnaz Moein, Anjali Awasthi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Services and Operations Management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExponential smoothingDemand forecastingComputer scienceTime seriesAutoregressive integrated moving averageArtificial neural networkOperations researchService qualityCustomer satisfactionService (business)BusinessMarketingArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carsharing services are becoming popular in recent times. Deploying right number of fleet at stations is a critical component in assuring high quality service for customers. This can be done efficiently if customer demand is predictable or known in advance. In this paper, we address the problem of customer demand forecasting for improving carsharing operations. Three categories of methods namely causal (regression forecast, regression forecast with seasonality adjustments), time series (exponential smoothing, moving average) and neural networks are evaluated for forecasting customer demand. An application of the proposed methods on demand data from a carsharing organisation called Communauto is provided. The results of our study show that neural network is the best method in this prediction. The proposed work has strong practical applicability. Having an accurate forecast of the customers' demands in different times of the year can help increase customer satisfaction and reach business performance targets. Especially if electric vehicles are used in carsharing companies, since they require special infrastructures.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Services and Operations ManagementSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207