Investigating the Link between Transit Oriented Development and Sustainable Travel Behavior in Brisbane: A Case-Control Study
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
The purpose of this research is to empirically test the prevailing view that transit oriented development enhances the use of more sustainable modes of transport using Brisbane, Australia as a case. Transit oriented development has been adopted as a new policy tool to reduce car-based travel worldwide. Despite being a billion dollar investment, the impacts of transit oriented development on promoting sustainable travel behavior is not conclusive. The research uses a case-control approach to empirically investigate this relationship based on travel behavior data collected from 88 individuals living in two contrasting neighborhoods in Brisbane: Kelvin Grove Urban Village – a transit oriented development, and Annerley – a traditional suburb (non-transit oriented development). A comparative investigation of travel behavior was subsequently conducted using distance travelled by modes and purposes between the neighborhoods. Results show that the availability of opportunity and services located within the transit oriented development reduces the car use by 5% and increases the use of active transport by 4%. The findings in this research support the implementation of TOD policies in Brisbane.
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 | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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