What Makes Parents Consider Shared Autonomous Vehicles as a School Travel Mode?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The integration of shared mobility and autonomous vehicles (AVs) could potentially change the way parents decide to transport their children to and from school. A better understanding of the factors influencing parents’ intentions to use shared autonomous vehicles (SAVs) for school transportation is necessary to enhance their children’s mobility. Unlike prior research, this paper significantly contributes to the literature by exploring the impacts of socioeconomic, travel-related, and psychological factors and their interactions. Using Google Forms for an online survey, the authors collected 1435 valid responses from parents in Kerman city schools in Iran. The estimation results of the generalized ordered logit model indicate the significant impact of parents’ socioeconomic status (occupation, education, income), travel behavior (accident experience, crash severity, travel cost), and attitude (innovativeness, perceived usefulness, environmental concern, pro-driving, safety), and their children-related factors (gender, the most frequently used travel mode, the possibility of tracking the child). The findings show that an increase in parents’ education, perceived usefulness, and environmental concern increase the likelihood of their intentions to use SAVs. Finally, based on the findings, several implications are suggested to increase parents’ intentions to use SAVs for transporting their children and to make SAVs a safe, affordable, and sustainable transport solution.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".