MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386699151 · doi:10.32920/24085320

Exploring post-secondary students' commute satisfaction and its relationship to well-being

2023· preprint· en· W4386699151 on OpenAlexaff
Danya Tugg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityToronto Metropolitan UniversityCentre for Social Innovation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubjective well-beingNeighbourhood (mathematics)PsychologyCognitionStructural equation modelingLife satisfactionSample (material)Social psychologyHappinessMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between commute satisfaction and subjective well-being (SWB) is an emerging topic that has yet to be explored for post-secondary students. Using a sample of 2,561 students from the 2019 StudentMoveTO survey, this MRP explores the relationship between post-secondary students’ commute satisfaction, emotional and cognitive SWB. Structured equation modelling (SEM) showed a positive association between commute satisfaction, emotional and cognitive SWB. Correlates of commute satisfaction and SWB were identified through SEM, including sociodemographic characteristics, travel characteristics, travel attitudes, and a novel finding of the social environment of a students’ neighbourhood. This MRP’s findings provide an understanding of the characteristics affecting commute satisfaction and SWB, which will help urban planners and post-secondary institutions create infrastructure and implement policy that improves commute satisfaction and mitigates the impact of commuting. Key words: commute satisfaction; subjective well-being; post-secondary students

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→