MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4366815709 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2022-0445

Modelling transit and automobile trip-generation propensities of post-secondary students in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area: a cross-sectional study

2023· article· en· W4366815709 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Abdul Basith Siddiqui, Jeff Allen, Sanjana Hossein, Adam Weiss

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTRIPS architectureTransit (satellite)Trip generationTransport engineeringProbitBivariate analysisDemographicsDescriptive statisticsProbit modelTravel behaviorOrdered probitPublic transportGeographyBusinessEngineeringEconometricsEconomicsStatisticsMathematicsDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The post-secondary students in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) maintain a constant source of demand and ridership for the region’s transit infrastructure. With the province investing billions of dollars to meet the transit needs of the residents of the GTHA, a comprehensive analysis establishing the correlation between transit and automobile trips and the factors that influence the trip generation for these modes and this subpopulation is warranted. Using data from 2015 and 2019, a cross-sectional study to gain behavioural insights into travel by post-secondary students is performed. Using a bivariate ordered probit approach, the effect of land-use attributes and socio-demographics on the propensities of making transit and automobile trips is determined, followed by a marginal effects analysis. The results indicate that the propensity of making transit and automobile trips decreases if the commute distance to campus is below 5 km, and improvement in areas with low transit accessibility can considerably increase the transit trip-making propensity.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering→Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→