Association between network characteristics and bicycle ridership across a large metropolitan region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous studies have explored associations between bicycle network characteristics and bicycle ridership. However, the majority of these studies have been conducted in inner metropolitan regions and as such, there is limited knowledge on how various characteristics of bicycle networks relate to bicycle trips within and across entire metropolitan regions, and how the size and composition of study regions impact on the association between bicycle network characteristics and bicycle ridership. We conducted a retrospective analysis of household travel survey data and bicycle infrastructure in the Greater Melbourne region, Australia. Seven network metrics were calculated (length of the bicycle network, betweenness centrality, degree centrality, network density, network coverage, intersection density and average weighted slope) and Bayesian spatial models were used to explore associations between these network characteristics and bicycle ridership. We demonstrated that bicycle ridership was associated with several network characteristics, and that these characteristics varied according to the outcome (count of the number of trips made by bike or the proportion of trips made by bike) and the size and characteristics of the study region. These findings challenge the utility of approaches based on spatially modeling network characteristics and bicycle ridership when informing the monitoring and evaluation of bicycle networks. Further efforts are required to be able to quantify network characteristics that reflect the myriad of factors that influence comfort and safety for people of all ages and abilities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".