Metropolitan Transportation Institutions : Six Case Studies - Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, and the United States
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Transportation has always played a \n fundamental role in the formation of cities. Ports evolved \n where rivers flowed into the ocean or at the confluence of \n major rivers; sleepy outposts at the junction of major roads \n became bustling trading hubs. Although this relationship \n between transportation and development has been evident \n since the creation of the earliest urban societies, all \n previous conceptions of the city were made obsolete by the \n advent of the industrial revolution. The transportation \n challenges raised by this new city centered on congestion. \n Early forms of transit provided some relief, but as motor \n vehicles became common place, existing urban streets were \n overwhelmed. As roadways were enlarged and expressways \n constructed, the population of new suburbs expanded and the \n automobile became the dominant form of transportation in \n many developed cities. To address issues at this scale, \n cities and countries around the world have developed new \n institutions that sit between the scale of local and higher \n order governments. The example of Boston, presented in the \n accompanying figure, is illustrative. The city of Boston has \n a population of 620,000, but its metropolitan area is \n commonly defined to include 101 cities and towns with 4.5 \n million total residents. An organization known as a \n Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) that covers the \n territory of all the cities and towns in the region has been \n created to coordinate planning of major transportation \n investments. The primary purpose of the current study is to \n provide an overview of the ways in which systems of \n metropolitan transportation governance are organized in a \n six different countries in order that these systems might \n provide models for World Bank client countries currently \n developing institutions for managing urban transport \n problems. The best method for understanding how each of \n these systems operates is consulting the county case studies \n provided in the final section. This study is organized as \n follows. The first section presents an overview of several \n themes that run through the cases. In the subsequent \n sections, each case is reviewed individually.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».