Accessibility to Community Services in the City of Toronto: A Perspective on Social Disadvantage and Homelessness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Local governments and non-profit organizations fund and operate many services and programs throughout the city including those which are specifically for the benefit of homeless, low-income or otherwise socially disadvantaged people. Accessing these services can sometimes be difficult, especially for those who do not have access to private automobiles. For such transit dependent people, transit accessibility to these services are crucial. This research measures the travel time by transit to various community services in the City of Toronto from each census tract and homeless shelter as a measure of transit accessibility. Each census tract was scored with an index of social disadvantage using four characteristics from census data. It was found that access was highest in the old City of Toronto due the dense concentration of services and more frequent transit supply. Places in the outer parts of the city face concerning levels of inaccessibility to community services. However, transit access to community services do not vary across the levels of social disadvantage. The travel time matrices generated in this research can serve as a guide for policy analysis for future service expansion.
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 | 0.017 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".