MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W637683351

Activity Space Geometry and Its Effect on Mode Choice

2013· article· en· W637683351 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chris Harding, Zachary Patterson, Luis Miranda-Moreno

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 92nd Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompact spaceSpace (punctuation)Measure (data warehouse)Mode (computer interface)Work (physics)Built environmentField (mathematics)Transit (satellite)Transport engineeringGeographyMode choiceMathematicsComputer scienceStatisticsEconometricsPublic transportEngineeringCivil engineeringHuman–computer interactionMathematical analysisData miningPure mathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding and quantifying the effect of built environment variables on travel demand is a topic for which there exists a large body of work. A relatively new sub-field in the urban planning and travel behaviour literature however is the analysis and interpretation of activity spaces. Researchers have associated large activity spaces with environmentally detrimental outcomes as a result of its intuitive correlation with large distances travelled by automobile, but no rigorous attempt has yet been made to define what types of activity space, be they large in area, concentrated along a corridor or otherwise, lead to higher use of either active modes or transit. Using data from origin-destination surveys in Montreal and two for Quebec City, Canada, the following article explores the relationship between area and compactness in activity spaces and describes a new measure for predicting likelihood of transit use. While the effort remains exploratory, the measure is validated using logistic regression. Results indicate that small and compact activity spaces increase the likelihood of active mode use (walking and cycling), that large and compact spaces lead to high personal vehicle use, and that a statistically significant relationship exists between the ratio of area to compactness (dubbed ACR) and transit use.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.359 · 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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 92nd Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207