MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413160238 · doi:10.1016/j.tbs.2025.101112

Grocery shopping and related access trips by mode in Canadian time use surveys

2025· article· en· W4413160238 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueTravel Behaviour and Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsTRIPS architectureTransport engineeringBusinessPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsEnvironmental healthEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Many travel and time use surveys group grocery shopping with all other shopping. • We explore characteristics of grocery shopping and compare with all other shopping. • Grocery shopping sequences are shorter, more car-based, in home to home sequences or returning home. • Nearly half of full grocery shopping activity time is spent traveling to/from. • Grocery shoppers are distinct from shoppers for all other purposes. Grocery shopping episodes are often grouped with other shopping in travel surveys, making it difficult to study these activities. This paper explores grocery shopping trips, shopping episode characteristics and participants, and assesses the potential loss of information stemming from the grouping of all shopping activities. A sample of metropolitan area respondent data from the Canadian General Social Surveys’ 2010 and 2015 (cycles 24 and 29) time use modules is used. In the 2010 survey, grocery shopping and other shopping is surveyed separately, while the 2015 survey merges all shopping activities. This provides an opportunity to compare these approaches. The characteristics of shopping activities (2010 and 2015) with respect to participation, timing, in-store episode time and trip duration, activity sequences (in-store episodes with access/egress trips), and respondents’ demographics are compared using bivariate tests, and logistic regressions. Activity sequences are assessed using two locations before and two locations after shopping episodes. Grocery shopping activity sequences are shorter in duration than other shopping activity sequences. No difference in episode duration is found between gender or income for groceries, while significant differences are found for other shopping. “Home-store-home” by car is the most frequent sequence for all shopping types. Nearly half of the grocery shopping activity sequence is spent on the access and egress trips. In logistic regressions, age, gender, employment, and the most frequent travel mode are associated with having performed shopping episodes, regardless of shopping types. Compared to other shopping episodes, grocery shopping is more strongly associated with being 75 or older, being married, from visible minority groups, and with higher education. Grocery shopping activities differ from other shopping in terms of participant, timing, duration, and activity sequence. Combining grocery shopping and other shopping in future time use surveys (and in travel surveys) may mask the distinctiveness of grocery shopping episodes, trips and overall sequences.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.288 · 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