MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403491679 · doi:10.1017/s0714980824000254

Characterizing Older Adults’ Travel Behaviour and Unmet Needs: Findings from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA)

2024· article· en· W4403491679 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kate Hosford, Beverley Pitman, Michael Bräuer, Ruth Lavergne, Meghan Winters

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaBritish Columbia Institute of TechnologySimon Fraser University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of Canada
KeywordsGerontologyLongitudinal studyPsychologyDemographyMedicineSociologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study provides researchers, practitioners, and policy makers with a profile of older adults' travel behaviour and the older adult population that reports unmet travel needs. In addition, we quantified associations between reporting an unmet travel need and measures of health and social connectedness. Data came from the second follow-up survey of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging, collected from 2018 to 2021 (n = 14,167). Nine in ten (90.2%) older adults aged 65 years and older indicated that driving is the main way they get around. Older adults with an unmet travel need were more likely to be women, have lower household incomes and education levels, and have a mobility limitation. People with an unmet travel need had 2.7 times the odds of reporting fair or poor general health (OR = 2.66, 95% CI: 2.19, 3.22) and 3.1 times the odds of feeling socially isolated (OR = 3.10, 95% CI: 2.57, 3.72) compared to those without an unmet need.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement→Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→