MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

GPS Travel Diaries in Rural Transportation Research

2018· book-chapter· en· W4255894164 on OpenAlexaffabout
Trevor Hanson, Eric Hildebrand

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobal Positioning SystemTRIPS architectureTransport engineeringLicenseExploratory researchGeographic information systemAssisted GPSGeographyComputer scienceEngineeringTelecommunicationsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global Positioning System (GPS)-based travel diaries have emerged as valuable tools for urban transportation planning but have had little uptake in rural transportation planning. This chapter describes the methodology and effectiveness of employing vehicle-instrumented passive GPS units and participant-prompted recall with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in a rural travel diary study focused on understanding older driver travel behaviour. A convenience sample of 60 rural older drivers in New Brunswick, Canada participated for an average of 5.3 days. The GPS devices recorded 1649 “stops” of 1 minute or more, with 8% of all “stops” due to stoplights or traffic delay. Remaining “stops” were organized into 1494 trips (one origin with one destination), with participants supplying travel purposes and driver and passenger details for 99.1% of trips. An external battery for the GPS unit minimized satellite acquisition delay but was exhausted in 10% of cases. Results from the study permitted an exploratory analysis of the impact of select license restrictions on older drivers, the potential for rural older drivers to meet their needs without a car, and exposure analysis by road class.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooks→Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→