Geographic Factors Impacting the Demand for Public EV Charging: An Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The practicality and substitutability of electric vehicles depend on there being a fast, reliable way to recharge on round trips beyond the range of a single charge. Grouping such infrastructure into charging hubs benefits developers and operators through economies of scale and electric vehicle drivers in terms of travel logistics and passed-through cost savings. The need for charging capacity at en-route charging hubs is impacted by the following four identifiable geo-social parameters: (a) highway travel volumes, reflecting the rate at which electric vehicles are expending energy in the area; (b) local population, reflecting both the increased needs of electric vehicle owners without dedicated home chargers and the reduced needs of those commuting into a metropolitan center; (c) the quantity of competing charging stations; and (d) being on a critical interprovincial route. Twelve charging stations located in diverse locations around Nova Scotia, Canada, were evaluated in terms of these four parameters, and their recorded use was investigated from a dataset of 26,000 charging events between April 2022 and April 2024. The regression reveals that there are strong positive correlations between demand for fast charging and (a) traffic volumes (45%) and (c) being on an interprovincial route (42%), while there is only a very weak correlation with (b) local population (2%). Interestingly, there is only a weak negative correlation with (c) the number and capacity of nearby competing chargers (−6%), suggesting that either in short-term route choice or longer-term vehicle choice, the presence of chargers encourages electric vehicles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".