Urban Transportation Indicators - Third Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1993, the Urban Transportation Council (UTC) of the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) proposed a New Vision for Urban Transportation, describing 13 principles which point the way to desirable future transportation systems and related urban land use. A pilot survey that included eight urban areas was carried out in 1995 using 1991 as the study year. This established baselines that would be used to compare with all future surveys. A follow-up survey was done in 1999 using 1996 as the study year and it included fifteen urban areas, which built on the first survey and compared the two study years. This report describes the third survey, which included all 27 Census Metropolitan Areas (although the level of their participation varies) and was carried out in 2003 for the 2001 study year. This report describes the survey process and results, draws conclusions on trends from the resulting database (which includes 1991, 1996 and 2001 data and which is mounted on the TAC website) and discusses progress towards achieving the TAC Vision in light of the survey findings and in comparison to international data. For the French version of this report, see ITRD number F160238. Pour la version francaise du rapport, voir ITRD numero F160238.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".