Walking to Transit: Influence of Built Environment at Varying Distances
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
This study investigates the role of the built environment on walking to transit stations by examining communities situated within quarter-mile and half-mile distances from Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) light rail transit stations in Texas. Walking to transit is calculated as a percentage of transit users who walk to the DART stations. This information was gathered through a 2000 on-board customer survey. Descriptive analyses of the built environment were performed and mean, standard deviation and the difference in means were calculated for 30 independent variables. The results suggest that constructs of the built environment vary based on distance of walking. Bootstrap regression analysis at both distances showed that although sidewalk density showed a positive association with walking to transit at both distances, other density indicators, such as employment and housing density, showed a negative association with walking. The findings from this study suggest that built environment variables should be analyzed for their effects at varying distances before policy recommendations are made to increase walking, since a “one size fits all” approach may not work at every distance. Directions for future research are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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