MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391958517 · doi:10.32866/001c.93913

How and Where Did Older People Travel Before and After COVID? Insights from Washington, DC’s Smart Card Data

2024· article· en· W4391958517 on OpenAlexaff
Mahtot Gebresselassie, Seyedmohsen Alavi, Andy Hong

Bibliographic record

VenueFindings · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTRIPS architectureCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Smart cardDestinations2019-20 coronavirus outbreakPopulationTravel behaviorSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Transit (satellite)GeographyKorean populationGerontologyBusinessDemographic economicsDemographyTransport engineeringPublic transportMedicineComputer scienceComputer securityEnvironmental healthEngineeringTourismSociologyEconomicsInfectious disease (medical specialty)Disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using smart card data of subway trips, this paper analyzed travel behaviors of older adults in Washington, DC in three phases of COVID-19 (Pre: 2018-2019, Early: 2020, Late: 2021-2022). The findings show that the impact of COVID-19 on average daily travel patterns was more pronounced on weekday travels, compared to weekend trips. In addition, compared to the general population, older adults’ subway usage showed a slower recovery to normal patterns in both usage levels and trip destinations. The results reveal important insights for transportation planners and transit authorities about older adults’ travel patterns during normal times and unusual events.

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)0.002
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 score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFindingsSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207