Association of implementation of a public bicycle share program with intention and self-efficacy: The moderating role of socioeconomic status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This natural experiment examines the effect of a public bicycle share program on cognitions and investigates the moderating influence of socioeconomic status on this effect. Two cross-sectional population-based surveys were conducted. Intention and self-efficacy to use the public bicycle share program were assessed by questionnaire. A difference-in-differences approach was adopted using logistic regression analyses. A significant effect of the public bicycle share program was observed on intention (exposure × time; odds ratio = 3.41; 95% confidence interval: 1.50-7.73) and self-efficacy (exposure; odds ratio = 1.61; 95% confidence interval: 1.28-2.01). A positive effect on intention was observed among individuals with low income (exposure × time; odds ratio = 27.85; 95% confidence interval: 2.51-309.25). Implementing a public bicycle share program is associated with increases in intention and self-efficacy for public bicycle share use, although some social inequalities persist.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".