MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3113565279 · doi:10.14288/1.0373877

Mobility Patterns, Experiences, and Preferences of University Students : Evaluating University of British Columbia Students’ Use of Single Occupancy Vehicle and Major Public Transit Routes

2018· article· en· W3113565279 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kendall Andison, Sean Bailey, Craig Busch, Matthew J. Callow, Michelle Cuomo, Nidah Dara, Desiree Givens, Laura Hillis, Emily Huang, Jacqueline Hunter, Emily Johnson, Cody Kenny, Robbie Knott, Jordan Konyk, Sarah Labahn, Wendee Lang, Mengying Li, Simon Liem, G H Lloyd, Sarah Lone, Katrina May-Yanitski, Tadayori Nakao, Tanja Oswald, Halina Rachelson, Lily Raphael, Naomi Reichstein, Maureen Solumndson, Jessica Todd, Anelise van der Veen, Pascal Volker, Jose Wong Cok, Rachel Wuttunee, Kelsey Yamaski, Zakaria Zenasni, Stella Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupancyPublic transportTransit (satellite)Transport engineeringPublic universityRapid transitMathematics educationSociologyPsychologyGeographyPublic administrationPolitical scienceEngineeringArchitectural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context and Goals: This study produced by PLAN 522 (Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis) students of 2017-2018 was supported by the University of British Columbia (UBC) Alma Mater Society (AMS) and the SEEDS Program. It evaluates UBC students’ travel patterns and experiences on six (6) major bus routes: 41 (Joyce), 25 (Brentwood), 44 (Downtown), 33 (29th Ave), 49 (Metrotown), and 99 B-line (Commercial-Broadway). Six teams of Masters in Community and Regional Planning (MCRP) students at UBC were assigned to these routes and a seventh group focused on SOV users. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→