MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4311651489 · doi:10.1155/2022/6816851

Estimating the Potential Modal Split of Any Future Mode Using Revealed Preference Data

2022· article· en· W4311651489 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Koen De Clercq, Arjan van Binsbergen, Bart van Arem, Maaike Snelder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsMode choiceMultinomial logistic regressionDiscrete choiceMode (computer interface)ModalRevealed preferencePreferenceMixed logitEconometricsFunction (biology)Basis (linear algebra)Constant (computer programming)Multinomial distributionChoice setMathematicsStatisticsComputer scienceLogistic regressionEngineeringGeometryPublic transport

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mode choice behaviour is often modelled by discrete choice models, in which the utility of each mode is characterized by mode-specific parameters reflecting how strongly the utility of that mode depends on attributes such as travel speed and cost, and a mode-specific constant value. For new modes, the mode-specific parameters and the constant in the utility function of discrete choice models are not known and are difficult to estimate on the basis of stated preferences data/choice experiments and cannot be estimated on the basis of revealed preference data. This paper demonstrates how revealed preference data can be used to estimate a discrete mode choice model without using mode-specific constants and mode-specific parameters. This establishes a method that can be used to analyze any new mode using revealed preference data and discrete choice models and is demonstrated using the OViN 2017 dataset with trips throughout the Netherlands using a multinomial and nested logit model. This results in a utility function without any alternative specific constants or parameters, with a rho-squared of 0.828 and an accuracy of 0.758. The parameters from this model are used to calculate the future modal split of shared autonomous vehicles and electric steps, leading to a potential modal split range of 24–30% and 37–44% when using a multinomial logit model, and 15–20% and 33–40% when using a nested logit model. An overestimation of the future modal split occurs due to the partial similarities between different transport modes when using a multinomial logit model. It can therefore be concluded that a nested logit model is better suited for estimating the potential modal split of a future mode than a multinomial logit model. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first time that the future modal split of shared autonomous vehicles and electric steps has been calculated using revealed preference data from existing modes using an unlabelled mode modelling approach.

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)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced Transportation→Same topicTransportation and Mobility Innovations→French-language works237,207→