MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Living the journey to school: Conceptual asymmetry between parents and planners on the journey to school

2021· article· en· W3184193088 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ron Buliung, Paul Hess, Lori Flowers, Fiona J. Moola, Guy Faulkner

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science & Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteVancouver Coastal HealthHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaPublic Health OntarioToronto Rehabilitation InstituteGeneral Electric (Canada)Toronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsSociologyPsychologyEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research about school travel and the built environment developed using positivist and post-positivist onto-epistemologies often relies heavily on travel surveys, activity diaries, GPS tracking, and the "objective" measurement of built environment features using geographical information systems and planimetric data. That work takes up and applies specialized disciplinary and practice-based language (e.g., planning and engineering) and concepts that are used to describe, measure, and design the built environment. In this paper, we explore differences in how parents think about the built environment and school transport and the ways in which the built environment and transport are conceptualized in planning. The presence of conceptual asymmetry between a scholar's "model" and the "lived experience" of parents and children may have implications for the efficacy of school travel-related policy and planning. We use Bronfenbrenner's social ecological model to guide a thematic analysis of 37 interviews with parents about school travel behaviour in Toronto, Canada. We found that parents' experiences of the built environment are complex and varied, with different features influencing individual parents differently, and at varying levels of the ecological model. For example, mixed-use development, often held up as a necessary condition for tackling automobility, was cited as a desirable aesthetic background for driving. We were able to locate examples of conceptual asymmetry but also agreement - particularly about traffic around schools. For example, parents expressed divergent views on the impact of heavy traffic on walking, with some describing traffic and traffic safety as barriers to walking, while others indicated that resistance to driving in traffic motivated a choice to walk. Our study serves as a call to planners and geographers to better attend to the lay, everyday onto-epistemologies that shape parents' lived experiences of travel to school.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0110.030
Scholarly communication0.0110.014
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Science & Medicine→Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→