MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973460043 · doi:10.1136/ip.2009.024240

Transportation policy and injury control

2009· letter· en· W1973460043 on OpenAlexaff
Todd Litman

Bibliographic record

VenueInjury Prevention · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsTransport Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransport engineeringPedestrianTRIPS architectureTransportation planningDestinationsParadigm shiftCyclingRange (aeronautics)Poison controlKey (lock)EngineeringComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transportation planning is in the midst of a paradigm shift: a change in the way transportation problems are defined and solutions evaluated. The old paradigm assumed that “transportation” means automobile travel, so transportation planning consisted of accommodating more and faster motor vehicle traffic. The new paradigm recognises a wider range of options, including non-motorised modes, and a wider range of planning objectives. The new paradigm does not assume that more travel is necessarily better, but instead strives for “optimality”—that is, a proper balance, so each mode is used for what it does best. With better planning, we can create a healthier, more efficient and more equitable transportation system. A key step in this paradigm shift is to recognise the full value of non-motorised modes (walking, cycling and variants such as wheelchairs and scooters). Non-motorised travel is basic and essential. It is virtually universal, used by almost everybody, both alone and in conjunction with other modes. For example, bus and train stations, ferry terminals, airports and parking lots are pedestrian environments, and most motorised trips involve walking links, such as walking or cycling to a bus stop, or walking from a parked car to destinations. …

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0370.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.004

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInjury PreventionSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207