MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406195340 · doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2024.12.047

Transit Ridership in Toronto and COVID-19: Statistical and Spatial Analysis of Ridership Changes During the Pandemic

2025· article· en· W4406195340 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Yichun Du, Murtaza Haider

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation research procedia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsTed Rogers Centre for Heart ResearchMcGill University
FundersMitacsToronto Metropolitan University
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pandemic2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Transport engineeringStatistical analysisGeographyMedicineStatisticsEngineeringVirologyOutbreakMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented disruptions to travel patterns, resulting in a significant decline in transit ridership in Toronto. This exploratory study employs statistical and spatial analysis to investigate ridership changes during different time periods corresponding to changes in government-imposed mobility restrictions. Our results reveal that ridership increased following changes in mobility restrictions, with mixed ridership trends observed during intermittent lockdown periods. The spatial analysis highlights the relative homogeneity of ridership changes across census tracts with bus-only service, while census tracts with subway stops exhibited greater heterogeneity. The findings suggest that bus service users were more resilient to external factors compared to subway service users. These results provide valuable insights into the effects of government-imposed restrictions on transit ridership, highlighting the usefulness of these analyses as powerful tools for transit agencies to promote public transit usage and plan for future scenarios.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation research procediaSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207