Explaining the Use of Different Transport Modes for Journey to Work in Urban Areas: The Case of Low-Income Persons in Ontario and Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies on journey to work have recently directed more focus on population groups considered as vulnerable to mobility and accessibility limitations including low income, single-parents and the elderly population. Understanding their usual mode of transportation will help planners alleviate mobility-related social exclusion and develop future transportation strategies that address their particular mobility circumstances that are sustainable. Using the 2001 Census of Canada, multilevel multinomial logistic regression models were estimated to assess the personal, social and economic factors that affect travel mode choice of low income persons in their journey to work in the urban areas of Ontario and Quebec and the dynamics of these factors across urban areas. Findings showed that car driving, is especially useful for the working elderly, married, those with children, and if place of work is within the region/province of residence. Public transit is strongly relied upon by low-income immigrants (both recent and long-term), women, single parents and if place of work is within the region of residence. Implications point to achieving balance in promoting public and private mobility programs and policies. While public transit is being expanded to reach underserved neighborhoods, private mobility programs which are non-existent in Canada would help in the short term to serve low income people who do not have an efficient transport option but to drive to work or find employment. Planning for accessibility of transport means to reach work places for low income individuals could vary from one urban place to another, as was found in Ontario, suggesting the need for sub-provincial approach in transport planning in this study area.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".