MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W651512165

Exploring Changes Affecting Travel Behavior of Seniors

2012· article· en· W651512165 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julien Grégoire, Catherine Morency

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 91st Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohort effectCohortPopulation ageingPopulationDemographyPublic transportPeriod (music)GeographyGerontologyDemographic economicsTransport engineeringMedicineEconomicsSociologyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2056, more than one quart of the Quebec population will be aged 65 years and older. Population aging is a worldwide issue and urban areas facing such intense phenomena will face multiple challenges, namely related to the provision of efficient and adapted social services such as transportation. Using data from five large-scale Origin-Destination travel surveys from the Montreal Area, covering 20 years, a pseudo-cohort analysis is conducted to document how features and behaviors of elderly are changing over time. Eights cohorts of people are studied using an age-period-cohort-characteristics modeling framework. Individual car access, non-motorization and transit share are modeled using this approach allowing to separate the effects due to aging, cohort (year of birth) and period (fundamental changes affecting all cohorts). Results show that age has a negative impact on car access but that there is an important positive period effect; non-motorization evolution is mainly due to aging while period and cohort effects are negative; age and cohort effects reduce transit share but the period one is now increasing since 1998 (generalized increase in transit share). The application of such models for prediction is also illustrated.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.234
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 91st Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207