“I travel because I want to be well”: How older Canadians perceive daily travel as contributing to their quality of life and well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Independent mobility and access to desired opportunities are essential determinants of older adults’ well-being. However, as they experience life transitions and changes to their mobility, older adults’ conceptualization of how travel impacts their own quality of life and well-being can evolve. Moreover, although quality of life and well-being can be considered separately in research, the two concepts may be intertwined in the lived travel experiences of older adults. Based on the results of a Canadian multi-city survey, this study investigates older adults’ (65+) evaluation of the contribution of their daily travel on their quality of life and well-being using a mixed-methods approach. An ordered probit model (n = 2342) examines the agreement with the following statement: “My daily travel contributes positively to my quality of life”, revealing higher agreement among older adults who use public transit frequently, who wish to keep travelling independently, live in walkable areas and are satisfied with their lives and physical health. To add nuance to these results, two waves of in-depth interviews were conducted. Findings from a large of interviews (n = 56) outline influential factors such as the significance of walking for maintaining mental and physical health, supporting overall well-being. Follow-up interviews (n = 35) reveal that older adults generally see quality of life and well-being as synonymous, particularly when considering how daily travel affects their lives. This research can be of value to transport professionals working towards improving older adults’ quality of life and well-being.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".