MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Built environment's main and moderating associations with travel mode choice across trip purposes

2025· article· en· W7092190762 on OpenAlexafffundabout

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Transport Geography · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsMode choiceTravel behaviorMode (computer interface)Poison controlPublic transportTravel survey

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Limited research has simultaneously investigated both the main and moderating effects of the built environment on transport mode choice across various trip types. To fill this gap, we estimate the parameters of cross-classified random intercept and random slope logit models employing Bayesian inference. We use data on 97,564 trips taken by 76,819 residents of Montreal, Canada, and develop three models to analyze three specific types of trips: commuting, school, and non-work. Our results show that the built environment of a neighborhood affects the likelihood of car travel, not just among its residents but also among visitors. For instance, doubling the POI density of a neighborhood has a dual effect: a 2.60 % reduction in the likelihood of residents opting for a car for non-work travel, and a 4.20 % decrease for those traveling to the neighborhood for non-work purposes. The built environment also moderates the effect of sociodemographic variables on mode choice; for instance, though higher-income individuals generally tend to use their automobiles to commute, public transit or proximity to downtown reduces their use of private cars. The estimated main impact of the built environment is relatively homogeneous for commuting and non-work journeys but slightly different for school trips.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.297
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.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Transport GeographySame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207