Comparison of Transportation Use Among Older and Younger Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regardless of age, transportation determines access to necessary services and supports, including food, healthcare, shelter, and social connection for persons experiencing homelessness (PEH). This study compared experiences and perceptions of transportation among PEH aged <49 years old to PEH aged 50+ years. We conducted a secondary qualitative data analysis of semi-structured interviews with 18 PEH staying in emergency shelters in Salt Lake County, Utah. Using thematic analysis, we identified three points of comparison between older and younger PEH: 1) Modes of transportation used; 2) Reasons for using public transit; and 3) Perceptions of public transit. While there are some similarities across transportation modes used (e.g., public transit, dedicated homeless-services shuttle, walking), older PEH also reported using taxi services when it could be afforded or shared with others. In addition, older PEH more often discussed using public transit to get to healthcare appointments, while younger PEH reported needing transit to get to places of employment. Though both participant groups described the prohibitive costs of transit, OPEH recommended that to use transit most successfully there need to be places to sit and rest when walking, as well as more publicly available bathrooms and crosswalks for safety. This age-based comparison offers insight into ways to increase transportation equity and support PEH of all ages who similarly have unmet mobility needs.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".