MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3101795574 · doi:10.3390/su12229603

Characterization of Public Transit Mobility Patterns of Different Economic Classes

2020· article· en· W3101795574 on OpenAlexaff
Priscila Louise Leyser Santin, Fernanda R. Gubert, Mauro Fonseca, Anelise Munaretto, Thiago H. Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersFundação AraucáriaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsTRIPS architecturePublic transportCuritibaDestinationsSubsidyTransit (satellite)GeographyPopulationScale (ratio)Survey data collectionRegional scienceBusinessTransport engineeringEconomic geographyEconomicsCartographyEngineeringStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes public transit mobility of different economic classes of Curitiba, Brazil, exploring an official smart card dataset provided by the city. With the population divided into subsets corresponding to economic strata, we characterized vital spatial-temporal transit usage patterns, such as departure times and destinations reached by different economic classes. We also constructed a network representing the common origin and destination of public transit users, enabling discovering distinct patterns. Among the results, we observe that with the increase in wealth, the morning activity is postponed (on average for 2 h), and the spatial distribution of the trips becomes more localized compared with lower classes. We also show that our model captures fairly well realistic mobility patterns exploring a cheaper and larger-scale data source by comparing our results with a household travel survey from Curitiba. Understand how people in different economic classes appropriate urban spaces help to provide subsidies for, e.g., more sustainable economic development propositions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicHuman Mobility and Location-Based AnalysisFrench-language works237,207