MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W629990169

How Does Land-Use and Urban Form Impact Bicycle Flows--Evidence from the Bicycle-Sharing System (BIXI) in Montreal

2014· article· en· W629990169 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ahmadreza Faghih-Imani, Naveen Eluru, Ahmed El-Geneidy, Michael Rabbat, Usamah Haq

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 93rd Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTRIPS architectureBike sharingTransport engineeringLand useBusinessGeographyEngineeringCivil engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Installed in 2009, BIXI was the first major public bicycle-sharing in Montreal, Canada. The BIXI system has been a success, accounting for more than one million trips annually. This success has increased the interest in exploring the factors affecting bicycle-sharing flows and usage. Using data compiled as minute by minute readings of bicycle availability at all the stations on the BIXI system between April and August 2012 this study contributes to literature on bicycle-sharing. The authors examine the influence of meteorological data, temporal characteristics, bicycle infrastructure, land use and built environment attributes on arrival and departure flows at the station level using a multilevel statistical model technique that is replicable for other regions to adopt. The findings allow the authors to identify factors contributing to increased usage of bicycle-sharing in Montreal and provide recommendations on station size and location decisions. The developed methodology and findings can be of benefit to city planners and engineers who are designing or modifying bicycle-sharing systems with the goal of maximizing usage and availability.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.308 · 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.

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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 93rd Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207