Evaluation of a volunteer transportation program that supports age-friendly rural communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Many rural residents have difficulty accessing healthcare services and community programs due to inadequate or non-existent access to alternative transportation (e.g., taxis, private transportation companies, and public transportation services). To address this issue, one community in a province in midwestern Canada developed a rural volunteer transportation program (VTP). Methods This study used mixed methods (i.e., quantitative and qualitative data) to conduct a process evaluation. The VTP was implemented in 2019 to supply transportation to residents within the rural community and its surrounding areas to access non-emergency medical and wellness appointments in major cities of the province. This study consisted of document reviews of the VTP's operation, surveys of residents and shuttle users, and interviews with volunteer drivers of the VTP and community residents. Results Over four years of operation, the VTP has sustained services, delivering 326 trips to 117 residents who were mostly older adult women with chronic disease and mobility limitations. Residents using the VTP were satisfied and would recommend the transportation service to others, as the most available and affordable non-profit inter-community alternative transportation option in their rural community. The VTP positively impacted the social relations of volunteers and the health, well-being, and social relations of community residents. Conclusions The findings of this study can inform existing rural VTPs on how to evaluate their operation and services.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".