MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W631764179

Dynamic Real-Time Ridesharing: A Literature Review and Early Findings from a Market Demand Study of a Dynamic Transportation Trading Platform for the University of Calgary's Main Campus

2014· review· en· W631764179 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shahram Tahmasseby, Lina Kattan, Brian Barbour

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 93rd Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeekersOrder (exchange)Travel behaviorMarketingDynamic pricingBusinessAdvertisingPublic relationsTransport engineeringEngineeringPolitical scienceFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this paper is twofold. The first part provides a comprehensive literature review on the state of the art and the state of practice of dynamic real-time ridesharing systems. The second part presents early findings from a survey on a social-network enabled dynamic peer-to peer dynamic ridesharing system called “FacePorter” at the University of Calgary, Alberta. A survey with a combination of revealed and stated preferences was conducted in order to evaluate the propensity among university employees and students towards participation in the FacePorting program. The survey‟s results confirmed some of the previous findings pointing to the influential factors in the success of peer-to-peer dynamic ridesharing, such as socio-demographic characteristics, attitudinal and behavioral factors, weather condition, ridesharing contribution fee, riders‟ profile and required incremental driving time. Furthermore, the survey‟s outcomes confirm that students are more willing to partake as ride-seekers in real-time ridesharing programs compared to university academic staff and employees. On the contrary, academic staff and employees seem to be more interested in offering rides.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.303 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 93rd Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207