Individual- and Area-Level Disparities in Access to the Road Network, Subway System and a Public Bicycle Share Program on the Island of Montreal, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined potential disparities in access to transportation infrastructures, an important determinant of population health. PURPOSE: To examine individual- and area-level disparities in access to the road network, public transportation system, and a public bicycle share program in Montreal, Canada. METHODS: Examining associations between sociodemographic variables and access to the road network, public transportation system, and a public bicycle share program, 6,495 adult respondents (mean age, 48.7 years; 59.0 % female) nested in 33 areas were included in a multilevel analysis. RESULTS: Individuals with lower incomes lived significantly closer to public transportation and the bicycle share program. At the area level, the interaction between low-education and low-income neighborhoods showed that these areas were significantly closer to public transportation and the bicycle share program controlling for individual and urbanicity variables. CONCLUSIONS: More deprived areas of the Island of Montreal have better access to transportation infrastructure than less-deprived areas.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".