MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073988241 · doi:10.1002/atr.118

Reform Beijing to a public transit oriented city – from the view of transportation equity

2010· article· en· W2073988241 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jing Shi, Zhaozhang Wu, Jin JangWon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeijingPublic transportEquity (law)Transport engineeringTransit (satellite)BusinessEnvironmental planningRegional sciencePolitical scienceChinaEngineeringEnvironmental scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The primary objective of this paper is to demonstrate and validate the necessity of reforming Beijing to a public transit oriented (PTO) city from the view of transportation equity. Equity is believed to be of significant importance to the development of sustainable transportation. This paper presents a comparison of the transportation structure in Beijing with that in other big cities around the world using Cluster Analysis. To accomplish the objective, a road spatial recourse analyzing model is used. This model describes how to distribute road spatial resources fairly to private cars, taxies, and buses. Furthermore, a survey on the satisfactory degree about the first bus rapid transit (BRT) line in Beijing from 8 aspects was conducted. An average score between 4.5 and 3.5 out of 5 demonstrates that the residents are satisfied with the BRT line. Results of this study show the feasibility and creditability in applying PTO transportation structure in Beijing. It is emphasized that more attention should be paid to public transit and it should be the orientation of Beijing's transportation system developed for the consideration of transportation equity. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207