Benefits of Campus Transit Pass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of estimating the expected net benefits of an unlimited-access campus transit pass, which would also fund an increase in critically needed services, is an example of the problem of estimating the value of a public good. Students at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Washington, used a referendum-format contingent valuation survey to measure students’ willingness to pay (WTP) for a mandatory transit pass. Responses by 935 students (a 44.7% response rate) were analyzed with censored logistic regression and revealed a mean WTP of $32.08 per academic quarter (corrected for estimated self-selection bias) for the proposed program. The program could actually be provided by contract with the local transit agency for $20.00 per student per quarter. Thus the estimated net benefit per student per quarter is $12.59, or $428,624 across the campus population. On-campus residents and those who commute via bus or bicycle showed higher WTP. WTP was substantially lower for those who live more than 10 mi from campus. Frequencies of “yes” votes showed majorities supporting the pass up to the $35.00 per quarter fee level, and strong majorities up to the $20.00 level, suggesting the proposal would pass easily by a student vote. Content analysis of reasons given for support, lack of it, or indecision showed that students were persuaded by nighttime bus service, safety, monetary savings, and environmental benefits. Doubts were raised by the mandatory nature of the proposed fee, services not meeting needs, and opposition to more student fees.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".