CURRENT PRACTICES FOR ASSESSING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS FROM TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This synthesis report will be of interest to department of transportation administrators, supervisors, and staff, as well as to the consultants that work with them in assessing the economic development impacts of existing or proposed transportation investments. Metropolitan Planning Organization regional and local agency staffs might also find it informative. It is intended to help practicing planners become aware of the range of methods available. This synthesis summarizes the current state of the practice through a survey of transportation planning agencies in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. This report provides reviews of the analysis methods used in recent project and program evaluation reports of these agencies. An important aspect is that the discussion of methods is organized in terms of the different categories of agency needs. This report of the Transportation Research Board includes an Appendix listing 20 available reports that either (1) review the economic theory and academic literature or (2) provide user guidance on how to correctly select and apply available research tools. This is in addition to 191 references cited and a multimodal listing of economic development impact studies arranged by study area.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it