MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413444979 · doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2025.103784

Assessment of passengers’ safety and risk attitudes on integrated urban air mobility and airline services

2025· article· en· W4413444979 on OpenAlexaff
Ying Zhao, Yan Hu, Tao Feng, Anming Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueTransport Policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransport engineeringBusinessAir travelAir transportMarketingAviationAdvertisingAeronauticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study introduces the concept of Air Mobility as a Service (AMaaS) by integrating Urban Air Taxi (UAT) services into the Mobility as a Service (MaaS) framework, aiming to enabling seamless multimodal transportation. The objective is to investigate commuter preferences for adopting multimodal UAT services. A stated choice experiment was designed to capture joint choice of UAT-based alternatives and subscription schemes, alongside attitudinal measures assessing the influence of safety and risk perceptions on adoption behavior. Using data collected in Beijing, a hybrid choice model with latent variables was estimated. Results show that subscription-based schemes, particularly sustainable options like Bike + UAT and PT + UAT, are generally preferred over pay-as-you-go alternatives. Government support and discounts significantly increase adoption likelihood. Safety perceptions also play a critical role. Specifically, perceived UAT safety encourages adoption, while safety consciousness, and perceived UAT risks hinder the use of these services. Individuals with higher safety consciousness are less likely to use pay-as-you-go options, and those perceiving UAT as risky are less inclined to use subscription schemes, particularly Taxi + UAT. These findings provide valuable insights for policymakers and UAT service providers in designing effective policies and marketing strategies to promote UAT adoption.

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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransport PolicySame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207