Bike-sharing: the good, the bad, and the future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the dilemma of bike-sharing concerning its benefits and drawbacks, and its unclear future, we focused on a mixed-methods approach to analyze this public discussion through posts or “tweets” from the social media channel Twitter. We collected around 12,000 tweets in English around the world related to bike-sharing for a period of about six months. We considered two approaches, including topic clustering and sentiment analysis in tweets including: a) bike-sharing related terms and b) “future” and bike-sharing related terms. Strongly positive tweets promote bike-sharing and its benefits such as being convenient, well-performing, and sustainable. Additionally, there is a tendency to write that public, electric, and dockless are better, together with scooters. In contrast, the complaints on bike-sharing focused on inequity, rentals and safety issues, critique on authorities and laws, and poor performance especially of dockless Asian bike-sharing start-ups with low-quality bikes. Around 50% of the tweets that included the terms “future” and “bike–sharing” stated that bike-sharing is going to be part of the future of mobility as an electric dockless version together with other shared modes. The hesitant statements towards bike-sharing being part of the future referred mainly to the systems with poor bikes’ quality. Politicians and stakeholders can use this information to enhance bike-sharing or consider the implementation of certain types of bike-sharing in their cities. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study would be one of the first that analysis the public discussion on social media about a transportation system and its future using a mixed-methods approach. Future studies should aim at identifying and comparing the public opinion of different emerging transportation technologies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".