MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281966321 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-18158-0_37

Investigating End-User Acceptance of Last-Mile Delivery by Autonomous Vehicles in the United States

2022· book-chapter· en· W4281966321 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Antonios Saravanos, Olivia Verni, Ian Moore, Aboubacar Sall, Jen Arriaza, Sabrina Jivani, A Bennett, Siqi Li, Dongnanzi Zheng, Stavros Zervoudakis

Bibliographic record

VenueLecture notes in computer science · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork University
KeywordsMilePerceptionLast mile (transportation)Technology acceptance modelComputer scienceStructural equation modelingPartial least squares regressionGauge (firearms)Applied psychologyPsychologyHuman–computer interactionUsabilityGeographyMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper investigates the end-user acceptance of last-mile delivery carried out by autonomous vehicles within the United States. A total of 296 participants were presented with information on this technology and then asked to complete a questionnaire on their perceptions to gauge their behavioral intention concerning acceptance. Structural equation modeling of the partial least squares flavor (PLS-SEM) was employed to analyze the collected data. The results indicated that the perceived usefulness of the technology played the greatest role in end-user acceptance decisions, followed by the influence of others, and then the enjoyment received by interacting with the technology. Furthermore, the perception of risk associated with using autonomous delivery vehicles for last-mile delivery led to a decrease in acceptance. However, most participants did not perceive the use of this technology to be risky. The paper concludes by summarizing the implications our findings have on the respective stakeholders, and proposing the next steps in this area of research.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLecture notes in computer scienceSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207