Automated Mobility-on-Demand Service Improvement Strategy through Latent Class Analysis of Stated Preference Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated driving technologies have advanced remarkably and are expected to be a part of our lives soon. Because automated driving technology does not require a driver, a significant change in future mobility services is expected. Automated driving technology is closely related to the development of public transit services as it can significantly reduce driver labor costs and provide a more comfortable in-vehicle environment. In particular, the preference for automated mobility-on-demand services that can respond in real time to the dynamic demand through automated driving technology is growing. Previous studies have compared passengers’ preferences for automated mobility-on-demand services and other transportation modes and proposed a way to enable more passengers to use automated mobility-on-demand services. However, as the number of pilot operations increases, future research will focus on ways to improve competitiveness among automated mobility-on-demand services. This study conducts a passenger preference survey based on the characteristics of automated mobility-on-demand services. In particular, changes in the in-vehicle environment and seat selection system, which differ from existing mobility-on-demand services due to automated driving technology, are investigated. The latent class modeling approach is used to classify passengers based on stated preference data collected from the survey. The estimation results show that vehicle type and seat choice system have a significant impact on passengers’ preference for automated mobility-on-demand services. In addition, considering that a high percentage of passengers do not prefer to improve autonomy in seat reservation and the in-vehicle environment, this study suggests that cost-consuming service improvement strategies are not always appropriate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".