MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of Transit-Pass Ownership on Daily Number of Trips Made by Urban Public Transit

2007· article· en· W1983573478 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Daniel A. Badoe, M. K. Yendeti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Urban Planning and Development · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsTransit (satellite)TRIPS architectureProbitSocioeconomic statusProbit modelOrdered probitResidenceVariablesBusinessCar ownershipNegative binomial distributionTransport engineeringPublic transportVariable (mathematics)GeographyEconometricsDemographic economicsStatisticsMathematicsEconomicsDemographyEngineeringPoisson distributionSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the factors influencing the decision to own a monthly transit pass and the impact ownership of the pass has on the daily number of trips individuals make by urban transit. Monthly transit pass owners in the Toronto Region are found to have a transit trip rate four times that of nonowners. A comparison of socioeconomic characteristics of transit pass owners and nonowners shows significant differences. A negative binomial model of daily transit-trip frequency is formulated. It is posited in the model structure that transit-pass ownership status is an endogenous variable in the transit-trip frequency model with the transit-pass ownership status modeled using a binary probit model. The estimation results show transit pass ownership status of an individual to be the single most important variable associated with the daily number of trips made by transit. Other variables influencing transit-trip frequency are accessibility and socioeconomic variables. Variables influencing the decision to own a transit pass include ratio of transit accessibility to auto accessibility at zone of residence, socioeconomic, and spatial variables.

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)0.002
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations28
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Urban Planning and DevelopmentSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207