Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The primary purpose of the Bicycle Diversion Evaluation Project (“The BDE Project”) is to determine whether or not wayfinding signage specifically targeted at cyclists, is effective at changing the behaviour of cyclists by encouraging cyclists to use designated bicycle routes. The goal of the wayfinding signs is to encourage cyclists to use routes that are less busy in order to reduce the number of pedestrian-cyclist conflicts on the UBC Vancouver campus. The BDE Project fills a gap in the literature as it is unique. The case studies that were examined in the literature review broadly suggests that signage is effective in changing the behaviour of pedestrians, cyclists or drivers. Despite not clearly being able to identify that bike wayfinding can alter the route choice behaviour of cyclists, the case studies suggest that wayfinding signs will be successful in altering cyclist route choice behaviour. As there is no case study that directly answers the research question being posed in the BDE Project, the BDE Project is an important study that fills a gap in the academic literature on the effectiveness of bike wayfinding signage at changing the behaviour of cyclists. Results from the BDE Project show that the percent change in cyclists choosing to travel away from the Pedestrian Priority Zone in the before-implementation and after-implementation counting period is not significantly different. As a result, the BDE Project cannot confidently conclude that the specific bike wayfinding signs that have been implemented on the UBC Vancouver campus have an effect at altering the route choice behaviour of cyclists. Despite this finding, it is important to understand that there are a number of limitations that likely contributed to this result. One major limitation is the lack of time between the implementation of the wayfinding signs and the beginning of the post-implementation counting. Another limitation of the wayfinding signs is that they are not placed at consistent locations in intersections and have small font size making them hard to read. Further studies looking at the design of bike wayfinding signs are recommended and need to be done before it can be concluded that all bike wayfinding signs are ineffective at altering the route choice behaviour of cyclists. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,040 | 0,007 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».