MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415617043 · doi:10.51250/jheal.v5i3.105

Perceived Transit-Induced Gentrification, Walkability and Crime: An Examination of the Purple Line Light Rail Transit in Prince George’s County, Maryland

2025· article· en· W4415617043 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shadi Omidvar Tehrani, A. J. Jaffe, Jennifer D. Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Healthy Eating and Active Living · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWalkabilityPedestrianBuilt environmentPerceptionAnticipation (artificial intelligence)Sample (material)Transit (satellite)Purchasing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates perceived transit-induced gentrification (TIG) in anticipation of the Maryland Purple Line light rail transit among residents of Prince George’s County, Maryland, and its associations with walkability and crime. In spring 2021, Wave I of the GENTS Study collected data through an online questionnaire on residents’ perceptions of the Purple Line and related neighborhood factors. Using exploratory factor analysis and multiple linear regression, we examined the relationships between perceived TIG, walkability, and crime. In a sample of 465 respondents, primarily Black/African American (61%) and White (28%), walkability factors such as accessibility and a pedestrian-friendly environment were significantly associated with positive TIG perceptions. In contrast, concerns about house break-ins, purchasing a gun, and walking barriers were linked to negative TIG perceptions. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics between urban development, gentrification, and social determinants of health.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 venueJournal of Healthy Eating and Active LivingSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207