MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022147654 · doi:10.1080/10630730701531732

Is Paradigm Shift too Difficult in U.K. Transport?

2007· article· en· W2022147654 on OpenAlex
David Banister

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Urban Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSimon Fraser University
KeywordsParadigm shiftComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although transportation has long followed a growth paradigm that has linked economic growth with greater prosperity and higher levels of mobility, concerns such as climate change have led to the need to find alternative means to deliver growth and prosperity. This alternative paradigm is based on sustainable development. This paper sets out the opportunities for a paradigm shift within transportation, before presenting a critique of current U.K. policy on reducing carbon dioxide emissions in transportation. The author argues that even under the economic growth paradigm, there is a need for modifications that cannot be left to market forces alone. There also needs to be a public and political commitment to intervention and change, and a recognition that both the nature and scale of the problem have been underestimated. Although the Untied Kingdom has traditionally led the climate change debate, political commitment is not yet sufficiently strong to support a paradigm shift towards sustainable development.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.281 · 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