MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6998750208

Assessing Millennial Travel Behaviour and the Implications of Gender: A Case Study of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, Ontario

2023· other· en· W6998750208 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTRIPS architectureTravel behaviorTravel surveySustainable transportLicenseMode choiceSustainabilitySAFERPublic transport
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past decade, as Millennials (those born between 1981 and 2000) reached adulthood they were observed to utilize sustainable modes of transportation more frequently than previous generations. This trend is viewed positively as it results in lower rates of automobility among this generation and is seen as a step towards achieving broader environmental sustainability and traffic reduction objectives. However, prior research has not tested whether these observed sustainable travel behaviour characteristics are manifest equally among males and females within the Millennial generation. Especially, because women face significant travel barriers due to economic, cultural, physical, and/or psychological factors, and their mobility needs differ from those of men. \nThis research examines differences in travel patterns of males and females from the Millennial generation using travel survey data from the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). Millennials are divided in four age groups: 16-20, 21-25, 26-30, and 31-35. The analysis focuses on variables such as the number of daily trips, driver’s license or transit pass possession, Vehicle Kilometers traveled (VKT), and auto/public-transit trip mode shares. The analysis provides insights into the differences in travel behaviour between male and female Millennials in the GTHA and ways to make the transportation systems in the region safer and more sustainable. \nIn addition to observable differences in automobility trends between Millennials and the preceding generations, the analysis confirms that there is an association between gender and travel behaviour. In the GTHA, women tend to make more daily trips than men, particularly among older Millennials. Additionally, women have substantially lower driver’s license ownership rates than men. Among younger Millennials, women have higher rates of possession of transit passes as well as public transit usage. Further, while full-time employment was found to be associated with higher auto dependency, part-time and being not employed were associated with higher daily trip numbers among older female Millennials in the GTHA. \nThe findings of this study suggest that women have a greater need for flexibility in travel than men, and tend to create multi-modal mobility patterns. The potential increase in automobile dependency among Millennials as they age and the existence of gendered differences in travel behaviour highlight the need for policymakers, including transportation demand management professionals and planners, to take action. This report provides recommendations to respond to these concerns and to ensure that mobility modes are more efficient, safe, reliable, and sustainable. These recommendations include 6 targeted policy recommendations and 3 broad strategies. \nWhile the targeted policy-based recommendations speak in detail about the following: \n1) Enhance transportation mode options for older female Millennials; \n2) Flexible transportation options such as discounted shuttle services for part-time workers; \n3) Improve public transportation infrastructure in suburban areas; \n4) Increase transit pass affordability, especially for part-time females workers; \n5) Gender-inclusive transportation campaigns at the municipality level; \n6) Conduct regular gender impact assessments of transportation plans/programs. \nThe broad strategy-based recommendations involve: \n1) Prioritization of context-specific research and data collection on gender and mobility; \n2) Addressing specific mobility needs of women in the implementation of plans (especially by urban planners and urban designers); \n3) Enactment of women-friendly transportation policies at the local and federal levels.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)→French-language works237,207→