MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281696251 · doi:10.1111/tesg.12521

Gender, Immigration and Commuting in Metropolitan Canada

2022· article· en· W4281696251 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Valerie Preston, Sara McLafferty, Monika Maciejewska

Bibliographic record

VenueTijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMicrodata (statistics)Metropolitan areaImmigrationDemographic economicsCensusMultinomial logistic regressionGeographyTransit (satellite)Journey to workPublic transportDemographySociologyPolitical scienceEconomicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Immigrant workers often commute by transit more than other workers. Although immigrants' reliance on transit is often attributed to the same factors as women's reliance on transit: low incomes, limited access to cars, and a tendency to work close to home, gender differences are discussed rarely in analyses of immigrant commuting. Using 2016 Census of Canada microdata, we examine the use of four commute modes: driving, transit, active commuting in the form of walking and biking and being driven to work by immigrant men and women. Multinomial logistic regression indicates how economic, social, housing and metropolitan characteristics influence the use of each commute mode. Immigrant women, especially recent immigrants, are more likely to use alternative modes than immigrant men in all metropolitan areas. The findings underscore the importance of rapid and reliable transit to ensure equitable geographical access to employment for immigrant women, particularly during their first 10 years in Canada.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale GeografieSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207