The Spatial Equity of Dockless Micromobility Sharing Systems in Calgary, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Micromobility sharing systems, including bikes and e-scooters, are often promoted as solutions to urban transportation equity challenges. Dockless micromobility sharing systems however remain understudied due in part to their novelty. In particular, there has been limited research on the spatial equity of e-scooter sharing, which concerns whether systems are equally accessible across a city regardless of the relative advantage and disadvantage of urban areas.\nThis thesis reports on two related analyses of the spatial equity of e-scooter sharing in Calgary, Alberta, Canada using an open dataset of three months worth of trip data (July – September, 2019): a gravity model approach to analyzing the spatial equity of e-scooter trip flows, and an ANOVA and linear regression-based comparison of the spatial equity profiles of dockless bike and e-scooter sharing. The results show that both dockless bike and e-scooter sharing in Calgary are spatially inequitable, and that there are no significant spatial equity differences between the use of dockless bikes and e-scooters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".