Impact Evaluation of a Public Bicycle Share Program on Cycling: A Case Example of BIXI in Montreal, Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We examined associations between residential exposure to BIXI (BIcycle-taXI)-a public bicycle share program implemented in Montreal, Quebec, in 2009, which increases accessibility to cycling by making available 5050 bicycles at 405 bicycle docking stations-and likelihood of cycling (BIXI and non-BIXI) in Montreal over the first 2 years of implementation. METHODS: Three population-based samples of adults participated in telephone surveys. Data collection occurred at the launch of the program (spring 2009), and at the end of the first (fall 2009) and second (fall 2010) seasons of implementation. Difference in differences models assessed whether greater cycling was observed for those exposed to BIXI compared with those not exposed at each time point. RESULTS: We observed a greater likelihood of cycling for those exposed to the public bicycle share program after the second season of implementation (odds ratio = 2.86; 95% confidence interval = 1.85, 4.42) after we controlled for weather, built environment, and individual variables. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a public bicycle share program can lead to greater likelihood of cycling among persons living in areas where bicycles are made available.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".