The effect of work-related factors on the bicycle commute mode choice in the Netherlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing the number of people cycling to work brings a number of benefits: it can lead to reductions in air pollution and traffic jams, and increases people’s physical activity levels. We investigated the extent to which work-related factors influence (1) whether an individual decides to cycle to work, and (2) whether an individual cycles to work every day. It is anticipated that the office culture and colleagues’ and employers’ attitudes would significantly influence both decisions. These factors are expected to impact the provision of cycling facilities and financial compensation schemes in the workplace. We conducted an Internet survey in 4 Dutch municipalities, gathering data from over 4,000 respondents. The results suggest that the following factors increase the likelihood of being a commuter cyclist: having a positive attitude towards cycling; colleagues’ expectations that an individual will cycle to work; the presence of bicycle storage inside; having access to clothes changing facilities; and needing a bicycle during office hours. The presence of facilities for other transport modes, an increase in the commute distance, and the need to transport goods, in turn, reduces the chance that an individual will cycle. Cycling frequency is negatively affected, meanwhile, by an increase in commute distance, a free public transport pass or car parking provided by the employer. These results indicate that an individual’s working situation affects the commuting cycling behaviour. The findings also indicate that (partly) different variables influence an individual’s decision to cycle to work, and their decision to cycle every day.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".