Do key informants and commuters share the same thoughts on modal shifts? Reflection from in-depth interviews conducted during COVID-19 in Dhaka, Bangladesh
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this reflective praxis, we share our experience of conducting in-depth interviews with key informants and commuters’ in Dhaka, Bangladesh. We conducted the study in 2020 and explored the perspectives of health, transport and urban planning practitioners and young commuters in Dhaka on potential transportation mode shifts amid COVID-19. From our experience and observation, we saw that commuters emphasized the barriers and challenges they face during the pandemic which key informants also acknowledged. On the other hand, health professionals were more specific on the underlying reasons behind possible transmission risks than commuters. Additionally, key informants shared an abstract and theoretical view of the potential of mode shift, which would appear to be influenced by their formal knowledge of European cities’ transportation policies and strategies rather than their lived experiences. Our understanding is that there is a difference in the thought process between key informants and commuters based on how they experienced the transportation system and their knowledge of other systems and thus how they defined the transportation problem and possible solutions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it