MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254610536 · doi:10.4095/301004

Mode of Transportation to Work, 2001: Passenger in Car, Truck or Van (by census subdivision)

2010· report· en· W4254610536 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban and Freight Transport Logistics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruckCensusSubdivisionTransport engineeringMode (computer interface)Work (physics)GeographyEngineeringComputer scienceSociologyAutomotive engineeringArchaeologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nearly 74% of Canadian commuters drove to work in 2001, up from 73.3% and about 10.5% of employed Canadians used public transportation to get to work in 2001, up marginally from 10.1% in 1996. In 2001, the proportion of workers who rode to work as passengers in a car, truck or van decreased to 6.9% from 7.4% in 1996. About 6.6% of all employed Canadians walked to work in 2001, down slightly from 7.0% in 1996. The proportion of employed Canadians who cycled to work increased marginally to 1.2% in 2001 from 1.1% in 1996.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban and Freight Transport LogisticsFrench-language works237,207