MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411024422 · doi:10.1016/j.ijtst.2025.05.008

Where to plug in? Assessing the users’ preferences for EV charging location

2025· article· en· W4411024422 on OpenAlexafffund
Md. Shahadat Hossain, Mahmudur Rahman Fatmi, Mostaq Ahmed, Bijoy Saha

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Transportation Science and Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsPlug-inBusinessTransport engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates individuals’ electric vehicle (EV) charging location preferences in the Okanagan region of British Columbia. Data comes from the British Columbia Activity Time Use Survey conducted in 2023, which collected individuals’ ranked preferences for charging their EVs in the following location alternatives: home, work, grocery stores, shopping malls, en-route, gas stations, and other locations. A random parameter rank-ordered logit model is employed to capture the relative preferences for different charging locations. The results reveal that individuals’ socio-demographics, travel attributes, built-environment characteristics, and accessibility measures significantly influence EV charging location preferences. For example, higher-income individuals show a higher preference for charging at home and workplace. Residents of detached houses prefer home and workplace charging over grocery stores and shopping malls. Apartment dwellers show a higher preferences for charging their vehicles in grocery stores, shopping malls, gas stations, and other locations. Additionally, individuals traveling longer distances daily are likely to have higher preferences for charging their EVs in shopping malls, en-route, and gas stations. The proximity of charging stations and land use mix, also play a critical role in influencing charging location preferences. A higher number of charging stations near home is found to reduce the preference for home charging. On the other hand, a higher land use mix around workplaces, indicating the availability of diverse amenities, reduces the preference for workplace charging. Providing community-based charging facilities might be able to accommodate the EV charging needs of these individuals. Nevertheless, the findings of this study provide valuable insights for policymakers and planners regarding user preferences for charging which will help in strategic investments, planning, and EV charging infrastructure development.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Transportation Science and TechnologySame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207