MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W168631565

Sustainable Streets: Foundations for an Emerging Practice

2009· article· en· W168631565 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ellen Greenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 88th Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityEquity (law)Social sustainabilityPolitical scienceEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningEngineeringEcologyGeographyEconomicsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emerging practices in street design seek to achieve a wide range of sustainability benefits. With public rights of way designed or re-designed to enhance ecological functions such as storm water filtration as well as to influence travel performance, both direct and indirect sustainability benefits are being sought by sponsoring organizations. This paper identifies three aspects of sustainability that can be meaningfully addressed through urban street design: movement, ecology and community. Each of these is linked to the three E’s representing the full array of sustainability concerns: social equity, natural environment, and economy. In its introduction, the paper cites theoretical and professional milestones that have led to attention in the street design field to these three aspects of design, arguing that the addition of “ecology” to the design paradigm is a critical expansion of a construct that is now widely accepted as including mobility and community dimensions. A definition of sustainable streets is proposed as: “multimodal rights of way designed and operated to create benefits relating to movement, ecology and community that together support a broad sustainability agenda embracing the three E’s: environment, equity, and economy.” Part Two of the paper presents examples of projects in six U.S. states and two Canadian provinces. The paper’s concluding section identifies three related areas of research and application that must advance in order to establish an improved foundation for this emerging practice: knowledge base, design innovation, and planning methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.098
Scholarly communication0.0160.022
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 88th Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207