MOBILITY STYLES AND ACCESSIBILITY IN NORTHERN ITALY: A FOCUS ON THE CITY OF TORINO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper, through the analysis of the relationships between residential location, mobility styles, and accessibility, aims at defining a set of travellers' typologies based on perception of accessibility to urban services. In the city of Torino a survey was conducted on a sample of 699 households, including at least one under 16 child, and stratified according to the residential location (city centre, suburbs, and outer city). The goal was to investigate two main issues: a) mobility, travel behaviour (through a travel diary), and car availability and ownership; b) opinions about the accessibility to the work location and to the urban services. All the household characteristics, as well as socio-economical data and user behaviours were researched and analysed through the Exploratory Factor Analysis to find out the latent factors on which clustering the sample. The results show three travellers' profiles differentiated by household size and accessibility perception. One group, formed by the largest families, spread over the three areas, shows lower travel-to-work times and mobility time budget but is unsatisfied in terms of accessibility to services and work. The cluster formed by medium-size families living in the suburbs is highly satisfied with accessibility to urban services. The last cluster is made up by the smallest households living in the outer city, declaring average scores of accessibility, even though showing the highest times to get to work. The results highlight the importance of the household composition and its socio-economical status, which induce different mobility patterns and accessibility perception. This allows decision-makers to define transport policies aimed at encouraging a more sustainable transport through tailored actions, information campaigns, and incentives targeted on the users attitudes and sensitivities
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".