MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034251716 · doi:10.1068/a3897

From Excess Commuting to Commuting Possibilities: More Extension to the Concept of Excess Commuting

2007· article· en· W2034251716 on OpenAlexaff
Mathieu Charron

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning A Economy and Space · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolitan areaProbabilistic logicExtreme value theoryExtension (predicate logic)Sample (material)Standard deviationDistribution (mathematics)MathematicsOrder (exchange)EconometricsStatisticsComputer scienceGeographyEconomicsThermodynamicsPhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The excess-commuting literature provides a methodological framework in which the observed average commute ( C obs ) is compared with theoretical commuting values: the minimum ( C min ) and maximum ( C max ) average commute. In this paper, I argue that real spatial behavior is ill represented by the two assumptions of optimal (minimizing or maximizing) behavior. C min and C max are in fact extreme values of a much richer distribution of commuting possibilities. I argue that all those possibilities should be taken into account in the evaluation of C obs . In order to do this, I develop a probabilistic framework where any urban form is associated with a statistical distribution of commuting possibilities, with an average and a standard deviation, within which C min and C max represent extreme and very improbable outcomes. Applied to a sample of fifty metropolitan areas, this framework helps us understand the combined association of spatial behavior and urban form with commuting.

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)0.002
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 score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations87
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning A Economy and SpaceSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207