MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412686285 · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.146252

Greenhouse gas emissions trends and fleet renewal of ride-hailing in Toronto, Canada

2025· article· en· W4412686285 on OpenAlexafffundabout
João Pedro Bazzo Vieira, Marc Saleh, Marianne Hatzopoulou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cleaner Production · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsHudbay Minerals (Canada)Street Contxt (Canada)University of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceBusinessEngineeringOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the evolution of ride-hailing (RH) in Toronto, from January 2020 to December 2023, focusing on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, driver long-term operational patterns, and total cost of ownership (TCO) across electric, hybrid, and gasoline vehicles. Using descriptive analysis based on three years of data from 179 million trips, our findings indicate growth in RH trips, distances traveled, and GHG emissions, with deadheading rates remaining at 33-37 % over the past two years. By January 2023, the percentage of electric vehicles (EVs) in Toronto's private transportation company (PTC) fleet reached 2.3 %, slightly higher than Ontario's 1.7 %. Driver operational patterns significantly impact efficiency and emissions. We identified that 42.9 % of drivers operate less than 200 km/week, covering less than 200 km/week with a higher turnover rate and 43.9 % deadheading mileage. In contrast, 40.2 % of drivers exceed 400 km/week, work more than five days per week, and are more likely to remain in the business. This group shows higher efficiency, increased trip cancellations and multi-platform operation. Our TCO analysis focused on active drivers suggests EVs are more cost-competitive than hybrids and gasoline vehicles, with new models offering 7-46 % lower ownership costs.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cleaner ProductionSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207