MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408535299 · doi:10.1016/j.cstp.2025.101430

The effects of urban form on public transportation demand in a developing city

2025· article· en· W4408535299 on OpenAlexaff
Maryam Hasanpour, Bilal Farooq

Bibliographic record

VenueCase Studies on Transport Policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic transportTransport engineeringBusinessEnvironmental planningGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid urban growth in developing cities alters urban form, which directly and indirectly impacts access to public transit. Therefore, to accurately predict future public transit usage in order to achieve a sustainable public transportation system, it is essential to understand how each urban form indicator influences demand. However, most previous research has focused primarily on the Global North or China. Therefore, this study aims to fill that gap by analyzing the effects of urban elements on public transportation demand in a developing city. To do so, after a comprehensive review of relevant studies, effective elements of urban form were identified. Then, using spatial statistical analysis, a database of the urban form and travel characteristics was assembled, and random forest regression was employed to examine the relationship of different urban form indicators with public transit usage. The model achieved a good fit and, using a game-theoretic interpretability technique revealed that most variables had consistent associations with the findings from studies in other parts of the world. However, a few variables exhibited different associations, such as distance to educational land use. Additionally, some variables had opposite associations depending on whether they were at the origin or destination of the trip, such as distance from the city center. Therefore, it is concluded that the impact of each factor on public transportation demand should be evaluated on a case-by-case and an origin–destination basis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCase Studies on Transport PolicySame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207