The relationship between built environment and walking for different trip purposes in porto alegre, brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measures to encourage non-motorized transport have received increasing attention among congestion mitigation strategies. This paper examines the relationship between walking trips in Porto Alegre and attributes of the built environment, analyzing the effect of trip purpose. To do so, binomial logit models were estimated. Variables were stratifi ed according to mode (motorized and walking trips) and according to trip purpose: work, study and others. Independent variables considered in this research include population density, land use, street design, accessibility of shops and service, and accessibility of public transport and parking supply. This study shows that the effect of urban characteristics depends mainly on the purpose of the trip. On work and study trips, socioeconomic variables have greater predictive power in explaining the decision to walk than the built environment variables. However, on other purpose trips, built environment variables were shown to be stronger predictors. Neighborhoods with mixed land use, grid street networks and shops/services close to households encourage walking for recreational and shopping purposes, whereas free public parking and transit availability discourage this mode.
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 | 0.002 | 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".