MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011725305 · doi:10.3141/2191-22

Macroscopic Model of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Municipalities

2010· article· en· W2011725305 on OpenAlexaff
Sybil Derrible, Sheyda Saneinejad, Lorraine Sugar, Christopher Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPer capitaGreenhouse gasGross domestic productTransport engineeringPublic transportPopulationEnvironmental economicsLand useBusinessEnvironmental scienceEconomicsEngineeringEconomic growthCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the challenge to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the transportation sector, urban municipalities hold significant responsibilities. The Municipal Transportation and Greenhouse Gas (MUNTAG) model was developed to help municipalities estimate their current transportation emissions, set future targets, and run forecasting scenarios and responses to policies. A set of seven criteria was adopted for the development of the model including low input, ease of use, and feasibility (i.e., the model includes only variables that are controlled by municipalities). The model contains five strategies: land use intensification, public transport, active transport, financial policies, and vehicle technology. Each use is addressed separately and then integrated into one working model. Motorized passenger kilometers traveled (PKT) per capita is first estimated with the gross domestic product per capita and population density. With transit infrastructure indicators, PKT per capita is calculated for each transit mode. Bicycle infrastructure is included to calculate the bicycle mode share. Response to several financial policies (e.g., parking price, area pricing) can be modeled by using elasticity statistics gathered from the literature. Finally, changes in vehicle technology (e.g., hybrid electric vehicles) can be modeled by adjusting the various emission factors. One advantage of the model is that all parameters can be adapted fairly easily to account for municipal specificities. Overall, it is a macroscopic, aggregate, and static model suited for medium-sized and large municipalities that can be useful as a screening tool.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207