MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399464614 · doi:10.1177/03611981241242775

Trends in Toronto’s Subway Ridership Recovery: An Exploratory Analysis of Wi-Fi Records

2024· article· en· W4399464614 on OpenAlexaffabout
Roger Chen, Amer Shalaby, Diego Da Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDestinationsDowntownTransport engineeringLeverage (statistics)Proxy (statistics)Transit (satellite)BusinessTravel behaviorExploratory analysisPublic transportGeographyComputer scienceEngineeringTourism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic has left major shifts in transit usage patterns on systems around the world in its aftermath. Unfortunately, the lack of detailed post-pandemic data on passenger travel habits has limited transit agencies’ ability to respond to trends and leverage new travel markets. The rollout of wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) services at stations and onboard vehicles presents a potential solution, as Wi-Fi device connections can be used to provide very detailed information on customers’ origins, destinations, exact route, and travel time, which in turn can be aggregated by time and geography to reveal broader trends. This study presents an exploratory analysis based on such Wi-Fi data to investigate post-COVID ridership recovery trends on the Toronto subway system, demonstrating that Wi-Fi connections can be a credible proxy for overall ridership. The data show that downtown office commuting has been the slowest-recovering travel market, with local riders in suburban areas, off-peak riders, and discretionary riders returning to the subway system at higher rates. The data also confirm past research findings that less affluent and non-office workers were the fastest to return to transit.

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)0.003
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 score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board→Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→