Dockless micromobility sharing in Calgary: A spatial equity comparison of e-bikes and e-scooters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on a comparison of the spatial equity dimensions of dockless bike and e-scooter sharing in Calgary, Alberta. Using trip data from the City of Calgary’s Shared Mobility Pilot (between July-September 2019), this study investigates differences in micromobility utilization by dockless mode between areas characterized by different levels of deprivation. ANOVA and linear regression results show that utilization of both dockless modes was spatially inequitable, with e-scooter and dockless bike trips concentrated in the least deprived areas. Dockless bike and e-scooter sharing utilization declined with each increase in deprivation level by 0.138 trips per 1,000 persons per vehicle for dockless e-scooters, and 0.015 trips per 1,000 persons per vehicle for dockless bikes, suggesting that more equity considerations are required to ensure that the benefits of dockless micromobility sharing are available to all areas regardless of the relative advantage or disadvantage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".