MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416284283 · doi:10.1080/15568318.2025.2586219

Factors influencing car ownership in Toronto: Insights from a hurdle-ordered model

2025· article· en· W4416284283 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mwendwa Kiko, Eric J. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Transportation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersInfrastructure Canada
KeywordsCar ownershipWork (physics)Structural equation modelingSustainabilityMode choiceSustainable transport

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the effects of household socio-demographics, dwelling characteristics and the built environment on household auto ownership using data from a survey of 2007 households in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). A two-stage hurdle model was constructed, consisting of a binary probit model of vehicle ownership (0 or 1+ cars) and an ordered probit model of fleet size (1, 2, or 3+ cars). Variables representing the five dimensions of density, diversity, destination accessibility, distance to transit, and design were included in the model. It was found that household socio-demographics and dwelling characteristics are the principal drivers of auto ownership, as shown by a greater number of variables significant at the 1% level and larger partial effects for these variables. Among the built environment variables, density, and destination accessibility were the most significant. Overall, the factors influencing ownership and fleet size were found to be the same, though there were some notable exceptions to this. These results show that policymakers seeking to reduce car dependency should focus on policies directly targeting the households, rather than those which target them indirectly through changes to the built environment around their residential location.

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)0.000
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable TransportationSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207