Travel Behavior of Car Share Members in Halifax, Canada: Modeling Trip Purpose in Case of the Use of Car Share Services and Mode Choice in Absence of the Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the findings of modeling the use of car share services for different trip purposes in Halifax, Canada. It also investigates the modes car share members would choose for those trip purposes, in absence of the car share service. The study uses latent class modeling techniques utilizing data from a web-based travel survey of existing car share members in Halifax, Canada in 2012. The paper includes two latent class models (LCM): (1) trip purposes when members uses car share services and (2) mode choice in the absence of car share. The first model investigates the purpose of accessing car share, which considers four purposes: (1) work related, (2) shopping, (3) personal business, and (4) recreational and others. The second model examines the mode choice behavior of car share members and considers five modes in the choice set: (1) transit, (2) bicycle, (3) walk, (4) taxi, and (5) other (carpool and rental car). The parameter estimates of the trip purpose model suggest that socio- economic characteristics, location of accessing car share, membership plans, travel attributes, and neighborhood characteristics are highly significant in explaining the purpose of accessing car share services. In case of the mode choice model, socio-economic characteristics, travel attributes, and neighborhood characteristics are the major predictors of mode choices in absence of the car share services. The findings of modeling travel behaviors of car share members will assist decision-makers to develop a more attractive, competitive, and easily accessible car share program.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".