Gender and daily mobility: Did the gender gap change between 1996 and 2006 in the Quebec urban area?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender differences in daily mobility have been an issue in transportation studies in recent decades. Researchers are looking for potentially explanatory variables that can improve our understanding of the gaps between men’s and women’s daily travel patterns. Using data based on Origin-Destination surveys (O-D), this study analyzes the evolution of gender differences in the daily mobility of men and women in the Quebec urban area between 1996 and 2006, with particular reference to trip chaining. Most of the results obtained were consistent with findings reported in the literature. Women make considerably more daily trips than men, but these trips are on average shorter in distance and travel time. Men, significantly more than women, drive cars or use bikes and make more work and education-related trips, whereas women tend to travel more as car passengers, use public transport or walk. Their daily mobility is more frequently for household necessities such as groceries, shopping and driving other people around. Moreover, women are more likely than men to trip chain, and their trip chains tend also to be more complex – with more intermediate stops – than those of men.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".