MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100429491 · doi:10.5539/mas.v6n7p1

Transportation Planning Survey Methodologies for the Proposed Study of Physical and Socio-economic Development of Deprived Rural Regions: A Review

2012· review· en· W2100429491 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mir Aftab Hussain Talpur, Madzlan Napiah, Imtiaz Ahmed Chandio, Shabir Hussain Khahro

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Teknologi Petronas
KeywordsBusinessPovertyData collectionProsperityRural areaPlan (archaeology)Environmental planningTransport engineeringEconomic growthGeographyEconomicsEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transportation is considered as an essential part of human life and backbone of national, regional and local economy. Transportation sector plays a crucial role in boosting up the life styles of common men by providing facilities and accessibilities as required to them. Deprived rural regions are always struggling from services and facilities aspects due to their remote and scattered locations. Transportation is a tool, which can mitigate rural regional problems by providing proper accessibilities and links to employment, health, education and services. The proposed study objective is to provide accessibility and proper transportation services to these rural regions. For this purpose regional transportation policy plan is required, which can’t be formulated without relevant and quality data. The purpose of this paper is to review different surveys methodologies, which are essential for data collection. Different techniques have been reviewed including face-to-face interviews, telephonic interviews, web and postal survey methodologies, pilot survey, participatory rural appraisals and household surveys. It is concluded that during study primary as well as secondary data can be used. This exercise can save time and other crucial resources. The data can be used for the development of transportation policy for the study area. This plan can be helpful in bringing prosperity, mitigating poverty and uplifting the living standards of common men in these deprived regions.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.021
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.330
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.130 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207