MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410465820 · doi:10.1016/j.geomat.2025.100060

Testing a generalized model to map bicycle ridership using crowdsourced data in a racially diverse city

2025· article· en· W4410465820 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Colin Ferster, Trisalyn Nelson, Pierre Barban

Bibliographic record

VenueGEOMATICA · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsHéma-QuébecSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTransport engineeringGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bike counts are important for measuring safety and prioritizing infrastructure investment. Crowdsourced data, generated by the bicycle app Strava, provides bike counts at unprecedented resolutions and extents for the sample of bicycle counts where the riders are contributing data. Researchers have developed models to expand the sample of bicycle counts measured in crowdsourced data to all bicycle counts. However, these models were developed and tested in cities with predominantly white populations, and it is unknown how well these models apply to cities with racially diverse populations. In this work, we tested expansion methods in Oakland California, one of the most racially diverse cities in the United States. We built a bike count and geographic predictor data set, collected new count data to improve representativeness of training data, used lasso regression to select and build regression models, and compared the results to the cities previously published. We found that the variables selected and accuracy of estimation of average annual daily bicyclists (AADB) by road segment aligned with other cities. Our findings, that crowdsourced data can adequately represent bicycling in racially diverse cities, will allow crowdsourced data to be used in racially diverse cities, which are often underserved by transportation infrastructure.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGEOMATICASame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207