MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096544294

Rural-Urban Contrasts in Activities and Travel Behavior: Preliminary Results from the Halifax STAR Project.

2015· article· en· W7096544294 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRural areaPopulationSurvey data collectionRural populationKey (lock)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key concepts and empirical findings on time use produced over the last 40 years are overwhelmingly oriented to urban milieux, and there has been insufficient attention to rural areas. This paper considers variations in time allocation and travel behavior along the entire urban-rural continuum, using the four components of inner city, suburbs, commuter belt, and remote rural areas. Particularly beyond the commuter belt, rural areas suffer from low densities of population and services, lack of public transportation, and long distances for most types of journey. However, road traffic is light, rush-hour barely exists, and many farmers or fishers live at or close to their job. An extensive survey of personal space-time activity is currently underway for the regional municipality of Halifax, Nova Scotia. This large region encompasses suburban, exurban, and remote rural districts, and the study’s geo-referenced time-use data allow for detailed analysis of rural-urban contrasts. Preliminary aggregated results are presented and tested for significance. Many inter-zonal differences are revealed, some of which were unexpected. Introduction: the Rural-Urban Continuum

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 score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→