Development of a neighborhood drivability index and its association with transportation behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background To develop and validate a drivability index for the City of Toronto and examine its association with transportation mode choice. Methods We used exploratory factor analysis to derive distinct factors (clusters of one or more environmental characteristics) that reflect the degree of car dependency in each neighborhood, drawing from candidate variables that capture density, diversity, design, destination accessibility, distance to transit, and demand management. Area-level factor scores were then combined into a single composite score, reflecting neighborhood drivability. Negative binomial generalized estimating equations were used to test the association between driveability quintiles (Q) and primary travel mode (>50% of trips by car, public transit, or walking/cycling) in a population-based sample of 63,766 Toronto residents enrolled in the Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS), adjusting for individual and household characteristics, and accounting for clustering of respondents within households. Results The drivability index consisted of three factors: Urban sprawl, pedestrian facilities and parking availability. Relative to those living in the least drivable neighborhoods (Q1), those in high drivability areas (Q5) had a significantly higher rate of car travel (adjusted rate ratio (RR):1.80,95%CI:1.77-1.88), and lower rate of public transit use (RR:0.90,95%CI:0.85-0.94) and walking/cycling (RR:0.22,95%CI:0.19-0.25). Associations were strongest for short trips (<3 km) and in analyses where both residential and workplace drivability was considered (RR for car use in high/high vs. low/low residential/workplace drivability: 2.18, CI:2.08-2.29). Conclusions This novel neighborhood drivability index predicted whether local residents drive or use active modes of transportation and can be used to investigate the association between drivability, physical activity, and chronic disease risk. Key messages The association between neighborhood drivability and car use was strongest for short trips. The drivability of the neighborhood where people work is a strong determinant of car use.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".