MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7047743435

I drive to work, sometimes: Motility capital and mode flexibility among young adult gentrifiers

2018· other· en· W7047743435 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEspaceINRS (National Institute for Scientific Research (Canada)) · 2018
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSuperconducting and THz Device Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)GentrificationMode (computer interface)Context (archaeology)Mode choiceWork (physics)Inequality
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter contributes to research exploring young adults’ changing transportation patterns in the context of gentrification and youthification. Of particular interest in this chapter is the phenomenon of multi-modality in commuting behaviour, which the authors call mode flexibility (e.g. driving to work one day, biking the next and taking the bus for the remainder of the week versus using the same mode for all commuting trips), and how differences in mode flexibility (i.e. not being constrained to any one transportation mode for a given trip) may relate to structural inequalities arising from gentrification and the workings of housing markets. The authors examine this issue by conducting a statistical analysis of novel primary data from an online survey of almost 700 people aged 18 to 40 in the USA and Canada. The authors find that multi-modal behaviour is partly an outcome of higher income earners with cars moving into areas where other modes are also easily accessible. Further, non-family households without children are more likely to be flexible in terms of daily mode choice. The authors advise planners and policymakers to acknowledge the constraints to people’s mode flexibility and to ensure that transit models are more equitably distributed in urban areas.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEspaceINRS (National Institute for Scientific Research (Canada))Same topicSuperconducting and THz Device TechnologyFrench-language works237,207