Simultaneous Capturing of a Flexible Substitution Pattern and the Complementary/Supplementary Relationship in a Consideration Set in Mode Choice Modeling by Using Stated Preference Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the use of an elicited consideration set in a mathematical model of choice and consideration set formation. It proposes an econometric formulation by allowing unrestricted correlations among alternatives in the consideration set formation and a flexible substitution pattern in the choice model. Data from a stated preference (SP) survey is used where the SP choice tasks were followed by an elicitation of the consideration set while responding to the SP experiments. As opposed to the latent choice set formation approach, the elicited consideration set reduces the computational burden for model estimation. Empirical models reveal the benefit of modeling choice in conjunction with consideration of the set formation. It is evident that overlooking the probabilistic consideration set results in the over-estimation of the effects of key choice attributes, for example, travel time and generalized cost. Estimated correlations among alternatives in the consideration set formation revealed rich patterns of complementary and supplementary relationships among the alternatives that would not be possible to observe otherwise. However, it is also clear that the relationship in the consideration set formation may not be fully translated into substitution patterns in the choice model; that is explained by the error-component mixed logit model.
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 | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".