MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133045675

What's "Quickest and Easiest?" Parental Perspectives of the Trip To and From School

2009· dissertation· en· W7133045675 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vanessa Richichi

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2009
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisDiversity (politics)Value (mathematics)Qualitative researchMode (computer interface)Travel behavior
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined perspectives of the trip to/from school and travel mode choice among parents who differed in socio-economic status (SES), and whose children attended schools located in different areas (i.e., urban vs. inner-suburban) across Toronto. Thirty-seven parents (20 active and 17 non-active travelers) of grade four to six students from four elementary schools (capturing diversity with respect to built environment and SES) participated in qualitative interviews after taking photos of their trip to/from school. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis linking the text and visual data. School travel was a habitual behaviour involving a 2-step parental decision-making process; these decisions were influenced by different factors. While escort decisions were dictated by safety concerns, the behavioural cost and reinforcing value of travel mode alternatives dictated mode choice. Strategies addressing these behavioural cost and reinforcing value factors may be helpful in making walking to/from school the quickest and most convenient choice.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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