Transportation barriers and equity: Values and experiences of elected officials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the importance of elected officials in shaping transportation policies, there has been little direct research on their values and experiences. Understanding the values of elected officials is particularly important in the context of transportation equity, which is fundamentally concerned with the distribution of benefits across communities and geographies. This research draws on a survey and in-depth interviews with local elected officials in Canada to understand their experiences and how they view transportation equity issues. We find that elected officials have little direct experience with transportation barriers, with few experiencing issues such as unaffordability, disability, or harassment, and evidence that this influences their values related to equity. While there was widespread agreement with values such as procedural equity, there was limited support for prioritizing marginalized communities in transportation investments, and this support varied by experience and identities. These findings point to a significant disconnect between academic/professional discourses on transportation equity and the values of elected officials. This underscores the need for addressing political contexts in understanding transportation decision-making and offering deeper understandings of the motivations and values of elected officials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".