Planning for Urban Freight Transport: An Overview
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
Urban freight transport is essential to the functioning of cities, but is also an activity that affects the urban environment and communities. Yet, freight is often overlooked in discussions of urban transport, in contrast to passenger modes. Much freight research emphasises questions of operations and network management but is less attentive to the links between freight transport and urban development. New efforts are needed to improve understanding of the link between urban freight and cities. This paper presents a broad discussion of the links between urban freight transport and urban planning through an overview of the literature in the field. The paper discusses key problems confronting planning and policies for urban freight transport in relation to its importance, impacts, interrelationship between stakeholders, institutions, influencing factors and challenges. The paper proposes a revitalised agenda for planning for urban freight and identifies key directions for further research, particularly around the land-use, environmental and institutional dimensions of urban freight management. By identifying major underdeveloped areas of urban freight research, the paper offers guidance as to key issues that will need to be addressed as freight grows as a proportion of the urban transport task.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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