MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380363978 · doi:10.32866/001c.77765

The Dimensions of Loyalty in Public Transit among Older Adults: A Comparative Analysis across Three Canadian Regions

2023· article· en· W4380363978 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueFindings · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsLoyaltyDimension (graph theory)Sample (material)MarketingTransit (satellite)Reliability (semiconductor)Variable (mathematics)Public transportPsychologyAdvertisingSocial psychologyBusinessSociologyTransport engineeringEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is an ongoing debate in public transit literature on how loyalty should be defined. While measures of willingness to recommend and to reuse have become the default, some argue for the addition of other dimensions (i.e., satisfaction and importance). We assess whether a unidimensional factor structure representing loyalty exists within these variables using a sample of senior transit users from three Canadian regions. The results are compared to two- and three-variable structures regarding fit and reliability, including questions on the importance of transit to quality of life as a third dimension to loyalty is recommended while not so for satisfaction.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.278 · 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