MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408365752 · doi:10.1016/j.trip.2025.101371

A roll down memory lane: Policy implications of nostalgic experiences in shared e-scooter consumption

2025· article· en· W4408365752 on OpenAlexafffund
Karly Nygaard-Petersen

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSharing Economy and Platforms
Canadian institutionsRoyal Roads University
FundersMitacsRoyal Roads University
KeywordsConsumption (sociology)PsychologyComputer scienceBusinessAdvertisingAestheticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Ethnographic study utilizing transit diaries, interviews, and participant observation to explore nostalgia's role in shared e-scooter use. • Nostalgia was found to be associated with consumer feelings of freedom and social connectedness. • New mobility norms and meanings ascribed to transport modes need to be considered in current e-scooter policy contexts. This ethnographic study leverages transit diaries, in-depth interviews, and participant observation to examine consumptive experiences of shared e-scooter use. Moving beyond functional and utilitarian motivations, this research draws on Consumer Culture Theory to uncover the affective dimensions that shape users’ experiences with e-scooters. Findings reveal nostalgia, underpinned by consumer feelings of freedom and social connectedness, are present in e-scooter experiences and implications for policy makers are discussed. By increasing awareness of consumptive experiences of e-scooters, this research contributes to an understudied area of transportation and mobility research, and holds potential to assist cities in understanding how to better implement first- and last-mile transit solutions as micromobility moves out of the periphery and into the core of transit systems.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Interdisciplinary PerspectivesSame topicSharing Economy and PlatformsFrench-language works237,207