Self-identified Women's Gendered Mobility Experiences and Cycling Frequency, and the Modifying Role of Newly Introduced Cycling Facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cycling facilities are a widely used, sustainable transportation policy tool, but their impacts on mitigating gendered barriers to cycling is less studied. This paper presents the findings from an online household survey conducted in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), Canada, specifically focusing on 10 neighbourhoods- five with a newly constructed cycling facility and five without. Results from ordinal logistic regression models indicated a higher likelihood of commute-related cycling among women who are between the ages 30-44 years, who work part-time, and who have children, on streets with a new cycling facility. Using a feminist geography lens, I argue that the presence of cycling facilities potentially allowed some women to minimize the patriarchal barriers they experience when cycling, including psychological and social expectations around feminine performance, embodiment and material understanding of their “cycling body”. This work calls for future gendered mobility work to further explore the contextual consideration of women’s and gender fluid individuals’ intersectional experiences influencing their cycling frequency, as dictated by their societally influenced gendered mobility experiences and socio-demographic factors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".