Examining the influence of personal-time-based accessibility on the frequency of public transit use among older adults across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Public transit can be a viable solution for older adults facing driving cessation. • Accessibility can help evaluate if public transit allows older adults meet their needs. • Personal-time-based accessibility (PTBA) is calculated using the travel time people find reasonable. • Increasing older adults’ frequency of public transit use can be achieved through increasing PTBA. • Those who perceive having good access by public transit use it more frequently. Many older adults face the prospect of driving cessation as they age. Ensuring that public transit services meet their needs could contribute to their independent mobility and long-term health. Accessibility, the ease of reaching destinations by a certain mode, is a measure that can be used to indicate how well the land use and transport systems allow people to reach their desired destinations. This paper explores how perceived and objective levels of accessibility influence older adults’ frequency of public transit use in a Canadian context. Based on a survey collected in six Canadian regions (N = 2,452), we use respondents’ stated reasonable travel time by public transit to generate a personal-time-based cumulative accessibility measure. We then develop a weighted binary logistic regression model to understand the impacts of the personal-time-based accessibility measure, perceived accessibility, and other personal characteristics on older adults’ frequency of public transit use. The results indicate that both perceived and personal-time-based accessibility have a strong and positive impact on frequent public transit use. Older women were found to be more frequent public transit users, whereas older adults who have access to a private vehicle use public transit significantly less. Findings from this research support the utilization of accessibility by public transit as a tool to better assess and plan for the transport needs of older adults. The results can be relevant for transport planners and policy makers interested in improving the well-being and independence of older adults through increasing their use of public 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".