MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302157414

Accessing the Toronto Subway: Access Mode and Catchment Areas

2016· article· en· W2302157414 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yang Xi, Shoshanna Saxe, Eric J. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCatchment areaLast mile (transportation)MileTransport engineeringPedestrianService (business)Drainage basinGeographyTransit (satellite)TelecommunicationsPublic transportEngineeringBusinessCartography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A ½ mile buffer is commonly used to define the service area of a subway (metro) station. This is based on an approximation of the distance people are willing to walk to access the subway. This research compares the ½ mile pedestrian catchment area approach to the service areas reported in the Transportation Tomorrow Survey for access to the Toronto Transit Commission Subway System. The paper assesses the breakdown of access by mode to the subway and the pedestrian, bus/streetcar and automobile catchment areas of stations in Toronto. This analysis finds two major drawbacks with the ½ mile pedestrian catchment area approach. The service areas of buses and streetcars that connect to the subway are critical, accounting for more than 1/3 of all riders. Spatially, the size and shape of the service area predicted by the ½ mile approach does not accurately represent what is observed in Toronto. Pedestrian catchment areas are commonly smaller than ½ mile in radius and the bus/streetcar and automobile catchment areas are often many times larger.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 95th Annual MeetingSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207