Assessment of Sustainable Mobility Patterns of University Students and Staff: Case of a LMIC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transition to sustainable mobility is a recognized socio-economic and environmental challenge, particularly among young adults in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This paper addresses the lack of comprehensive research on mobility patterns for LMICs by examining the travel patterns of students, staff, and lecturers at the National Advanced School of Public Works, Yaoundé (NASPW) to understand transport mode choices and barriers to the use of public and active transport modes. Data was collected through online questionnaires from 425 participants. Findings revealed that most students (27.5%) used multiple modes of transport, with moto-taxis being the most common (21%). Lecturers primarily used private cars (50%), while staff relied on taxis or multiple modes (33%). Accessibility, vehicle speed, and flexibility appeared as the most important reasons for the preferred modes of transport. Barriers included long waiting times and traffic congestion for public transport, and distance and inadequate infrastructure for active mobility. The usage of public transportation was encouraged by its affordability and reduced travel time, whilst active options were preferred due to their cost savings and health benefits. To promote sustainable mobility for campus travel, it is crucial to encourage active modes, develop mass transport systems, and raise awareness through symposiums and conferences among students and staff.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".