Do new urban and suburban cycling facilities encourage more bicycling?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cycling facilities have become a widely used sustainable transportation policy tool, but their impacts on reduced car dependence are difficult to isolate. This paper presents the findings from a household survey conducted in 17 neighbourhoods in the Toronto region, Canada, some with a recently built cycling facility and some without. Results indicate higher odds of increased commute-related bicycling on streets with a new cycling facility. People who were already commuting by bicycle at least once a week are likely to bicycle more frequently after new facilities are built. Bicycling uptake is more obvious in neighbourhhods with a new cycle track, while changes relating to bicycle lanes were not statistically different from neighbourhoods without a facility. All else being equal, urban cycling facilities were associated with higher odds of increased commute-related bicycling, compared to suburban locations. Findings offer insights into expected outcomes of bicycle network expansion policy/projects.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it