Risk perceptions of COVID-19 transmission in different travel modes
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
COVID-19 pandemic has caused adverse impacts on different aspects of life around the globe, including travelers' mode choice behavior. To make their travel safe, transportation planners and policymakers need to understand people's perceptions of the risk of COVID-19 transmission in different travel modes. This study aimed to estimate mode-wise perceived risk of viral transmission and identify the factors that influenced the perceived risk in Bangladesh. The study used a five-point Likert scale to measure the perceived risk of COVID-19 transmission in each travel mode. Using ordinal logistic regression models, the study explored the factors that influenced the perceived risk of COVID-19 transmission in different travel modes. The study found that people perceived a very high risk of viral transmission in public transport (bus), moderate risk in shared modes (rickshaw, auto-rickshaw, ridesharing), and very low risk in private modes (private car, motorcycle/scooter, walking, cycling). Such high-risk perception of viral transmission in public transport and shared modes might lead to a modal shift to private modes, which would worsen urban transport problems and undermine sustainable transportation goals. The study also found that socio-economic factors (gender, age, income) significantly influenced perceived risks in all travel modes. Contrarily, psychological factors (worry, care, and trust) were significant only for public and shared modes, but not for private modes. Lastly, travel behavior-related factors influenced perceived risk in shared and private modes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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