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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".