Revenue Alterations of Shared Automated Mobility Services Integrated into Mobility as a Service
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of mobility as a service (MaaS) is integrating mobility services and offering them to users via a single means. The introduction of shared autonomous vehicles (SAVs) and adaptation of revenue models must be tackled in the MaaS concept. As the scientific basis for this is incomplete, we forecasted the alterations in the revenue of SAVs after the integration into MaaS. We analyzed the existing revenue models used by shared mobility services and MaaS, and used a revenue model framework (RMF) to explore the possible sources of revenue. Our methodology contains the before-and-after analysis and considers the MaaS integration levels. The main findings indicate that MaaS takes over revenue sources from mobility service providers as the integration levels increase. Also, the commission paid to MaaS is a new cost for mobility service providers. Then, integrating SAVs into MaaS is beneficial if the revenue increase caused by number of trips outweighs the loss generated by the responsibilities taken by MaaS. Finally, the door-to-door SAV services exist in all integration levels, but feeder is only present at level 3. MaaS operators and SAV mobility service providers can use our findings during negotiations of contracts, and the integration process can be accelerated.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it