MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412754835 · doi:10.11159/iccste25.295

Spatiotemporal Analysis of Chicago Ridesharing Demand using Modified Spatial Error Model

2025· article· en· W4412754835 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Taqwa I. Alhadidi, Mohamed Elkhouly

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ridesharing has transformed urban transportation by altering the mobility patterns in major cities.To understand the complex interplay of demographic, socioeconomic, and infrastructural factors, it is necessary to employ a spatial and temporal analytical approach.This study utilized a modified version of the Spatial Error Model (SEM) to evaluate the dynamics of rideshare demand in Chicago by analyzing data from 77 community areas over a 60-day period in 2022.Our modified SEM accounts for both spatial dependencies and temporal correlations.This study provides a nuanced understanding of how demographic, socioeconomic, and infrastructural factors impact rideshare usage.Our results indicate that population size, crime rates, and educational attainment are positively correlated with rideshare demand, whereas median age has a negative impact.Additionally, high transit accessibility enhances rideshare usage, suggesting a synergistic relationship with public-transportation systems.However, regions with high walkability showed reduced demand, indicating a preference for walking, or cycling over ridesharing in easily navigable areas.These insights are essential for urban planners and policymakers aiming to improve urban mobility and effectively integrate ridesharing into transportation ecosystems.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.255
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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation EngineeringSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207