Transportation Alternatives for Rural Seniors in New Brunswick, Canada: Issues, Policy Implications and Research Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A review of the literature relating to rural older people and transportation suggests there is a disconnect between the transportation needs of rural older people and the transportation available or provided to them, especially in the context of those who have curtailed driving or are no longer licensed. While numerous services claim to serve rural transportation interests, little research has closely examined the availability and type of the services relative to the transportation needs of rural seniors. Selected local and intercity transportation operators in New Brunswick, Canada (population 730,000) were identified, profiled and interviewed to explore issues relating to service uptake by rural seniors, including policy implications and research needs. New Brunswick was used as a case study given its substantial rural population (50% of the population), when compared to Canada as a whole (20% of the population is rural) (1). The study found many rural areas in New Brunswick have no local transportation alternatives available, and of those that do, most struggle for ridership and all have funding issues. Available transportation at the local level is a mix of non-profit associations, nursing homes, private companies and municipally-sponsored systems. Some taxi services are willing to serve rural areas, but at substantial cost. Intercity transportation consists of scheduled bus service between terminals in municipalities by one main carrier along major routes and by passenger rail along one corridor only. The most successful rural system appears to be a member-based service using passenger vehicles but provincial government funding cuts jeopardizes the future of the service.
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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".