MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1135923741

Financement et gouvernance des transports dans les grandes régions métropolitaines du Canada : inventaire des pratiques courantes

2014· article· fr· W1135923741 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Berthe Lambert, W Byczek, J Calimente, G Gratton, J Heseltine, Ryan Martinson, G Masterson, Sunday Times New

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTransport and Economic Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesGeographyArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les rA©gions mA©tropolitaines du Canada ont dA©veloppA© des cadres de gouvernance et de financement des transports urbains pour rA©pondre au contexte historique, gA©ographique et gouvernemental spA©cifique A chacune d’entre elles. Les rA©alitA©s locales telles que la demande en transports, la gA©ographie, les taux de croissance, les lois et les rA¨glements varient considA©rablement. Toutefois, ce que les zones mA©tropolitaines ont en commun, c’est l’effort constant qu’elles fournissent pour adapter la gouvernance des transports et les structures financiA¨res pour rA©pondre aux besoins prA©sents et futurs en transports de maniA¨re A©quitable et durable. L’Association des transports du Canada (ATC) a prA©cA©demment analysA© le financement des transports rA©gionaux au moyen de deux A©tudes distinctes. D’abord, le dossier d’information de l’ATC publiA© en 2002 et intitulA© Innovations en matiA¨re de financement des transports urbains, qui a examinA© le cadre de financement et de gouvernance des transports A Vancouver, A Calgary, A Edmonton et A MontrA©al. Il a A©tA© suivi en 2012 par le dossier d’information intitulA© Le financement durable des transports urbains/rA©gionaux au Canada, qui a A©valuA© les besoins et examinA© toute une gamme de sources de financement utilisA©es. La prA©sente A©tude vise A inventorier les A©lA©ments principaux, les rA©ussites et les dA©fis en lien avec le financement et la gouvernance des transports urbains des grandes rA©gions mA©tropolitaines du Canada suivantes : le Grand Vancouver, la ville de Calgary et sa pA©riphA©rie, la ville d’Edmonton et sa pA©riphA©rie, la ville de Winnipeg et sa pA©riphA©rie, la rA©gion du grand Toronto et de Hamilton (RGTH), la rA©gion mA©tropolitaine de MontrA©al et la MunicipalitA© rA©gionale d’Halifax. Cet inventaire aidera les lecteurs A comprendre comment sont planifiA©es et financA©es les infrastructures et les dA©cisions opA©rationnelles des transports, et qui sont les principaux dA©cideurs. De plus, les rA©ussites et les dA©fis aideront les autres municipalitA©s canadiennes A en savoir plus sur les avantages et les inconvA©nients de chaque systA¨me, et A savoir quels A©lA©ments pourraient le mieux s’appliquer A leur situation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTransport and Economic PoliciesFrench-language works237,207