Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic had an unprecedented impact on transit usage, primarily owing to the fear of infection. Social distancing measures, moreover, could alter habitual travel behavior, for example, using transit for commuting. This study explored the relationships among pandemic fear, the adoption of protective measures, changes in travel behavior, and anticipated transit usage in the post-COVID era, through the lens of protection motivation theory. Data containing multidimensional attitudinal responses about transit usage at several pandemic stages were utilized for the investigation. They were collected through a web-based survey in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada. Two structural equation models were estimated to examine the factors influencing anticipated postpandemic transit usage behavior. The results revealed that people taking relatively higher protective measures were comfortable taking a cautious approach such as complying with transit safety policies (TSP) and getting vaccinated to make transit trips. However, the intention to use transit on vaccine availability was found to be lower than in the case of TSP implementation. Conversely, those who were uncomfortable taking transit with caution and who were inclined to avoid travel and rely on e-shopping were most unlikely to return to transit in the future. A similar finding was observed for females, those with vehicle access, and middle-income individuals. However, frequent transit users during the pre-COVID period were more likely to continue to use transit after the pandemic. The study's findings also indicated that some travelers might be avoiding transit specifically because of the pandemic, implying they are likely to return in the future.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".