MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306194565 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0275714

The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on ridesourcing services differed between small towns and large cities

2022· article· en· W4306194565 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nael Alsaleh, Bilal Farooq

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)TRIPS architecturePopulation2019-20 coronavirus outbreakDemographySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)VaccinationEnvironmental healthGeographySocioeconomicsMedicineOutbreakVirologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)EconomicsDiseaseEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To curb the spread of the ongoing 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19), authorities have adopted several non-pharmaceutical (NPIs) and pharmaceutical interventions, which significantly affected our daily activities and mobility patterns. However, it is still unclear how severity of NPIs, COVID-19-related variables, and vaccination rates have affected demand for ridesourcing services, and whether these effects vary across small towns and large cities. We analyzed over 220 million ride requests in the City of Chicago (population: 2.7 million), Illinois, and 52 thousand in the Town of Innisfil (population: 37 thousand), Ontario, to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the ridesourcing demand in the two locations. Overall, the pandemic resulted in fewer trips in areas with higher proportions of seniors and more trips to parks and green spaces. Ridesourcing demand was adversely affected by the stringency index and COVID-19-related variables, and positively affected by vaccination rates. However, compared to Innisfil, ridesourcing services in Chicago experienced higher reductions in demand, were more affected by the number of hospitalizations and deaths, were less impacted by vaccination rates, and had lower recovery rates.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.192 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207