MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403922241 · doi:10.1155/2024/6555597

Analysis of Factors Influencing Public Acceptance of Air Taxis in South Korea

2024· article· en· W4403922241 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seungmin Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxisPublic transportTransport engineeringBusinessEnvironmental planningRegional scienceEnvironmental healthEngineeringEnvironmental scienceGeographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Air taxis, a core service within urban air mobility (UAM), have the potential to enhance user satisfaction and address societal challenges such as traffic congestion and environmental pollution. However, the success of this service is often hindered by various concerns. To ensure successful implementation, we investigate the factors influencing public acceptance of air taxis. This study distinguishes itself from previous research in three key aspects. First, it introduces a novel classification of the factors into individual and societal dimensions. Second, it is among the first to apply a value‐based adoption model to understand the intention to adopt air taxis, including UAM. Third, it uniquely considers the Korean perspective, unlike most existing studies that focus on Western cultural contexts. To identify the consumers’ perceptions, we conducted interviews with experts and surveyed a sample of 1,000 members of the general public in Korea. Our findings suggest that perceived value for society, as well as perceived value for individual users, significantly influences adoption intention. We discuss both academic insights and practical implications for policy and industry, supporting the commercialization of Korean UAM (K‐UAM) promoted by the Korean government.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsFrench-language works237,207