MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W194555144 · doi:10.15173/esr.v9i2.416

Can Urban Form Affect Transportation Energy Use and Emissions?

2001· article· en· W194555144 on OpenAlex
Pavlos Kanaroglou, Robert B. South

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Studies Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolitan areaStatus quoEnergy consumptionConsumption (sociology)Distribution (mathematics)Affect (linguistics)Land useEnvironmental economicsEconomic geographyTransport engineeringNatural resource economicsGeographyEnvironmental scienceRegional scienceEconomicsCivil engineeringMathematicsEngineeringSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The debate on the type of urban form that is the most efficient with respect to transportation energy consumption and the associated pollutant emissions has produced ambiguous results. This paper contributes to the debate through an analysis of the efficiency of simulated urba nforms for the time period 1991-2021 with the help of IMULATE, an Integrated Transportation and Land Use Model for the Hamilton Census Metropolitan Area. The urban forms analysed are obtained by varying the spatial distribution of the projected household growth in the region. The status quo is compared to a compact urban form and to two multi nucleated forms. The results, albeit ambiguous, demonstrate that the way future scenarios are developed can have a significant impact on inferences drawn from such studies.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.280 · 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