Children’s Independent Trips on Weekdays and Weekends: Case Study of Québec City
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children’s independent mobility (CIM) on school days (weekdays) and on the weekend are examined in this study. Previous studies have focused primarily on weekday trips, with a vast majority only examining trips to school. However, the types of trips and the available time differ between weekdays and weekends. Weekday trips are more regular and possibly more local, whereas on the weekend the children may have more free time (i.e., no school) to engage in activities. Parents (as a group) are also less likely to have work obligations, and thus potentially more time, on the weekend. Theoretically, each context for the weekend could facilitate more independent or active mode trips. Nonetheless, this may be linked to whether destinations are local, which is linked to the built environment. Using origin–destination data (2011) for the City of Québec, this paper will expand knowledge in the field of children’s travel by examining all trips during a weekday ( n = 979) and weekend ( n = 315) for children aged 9 to 11 across five built environment types. The findings show that weekend trips are rarely independent, and that the key explanatory factors for greater CIM are shorter distances, having an older sibling, and more urban environments. Other sociodemographic variables were not significant or were inconsistent between the two types of weekday.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".