MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103109968 · doi:10.7202/1005876ar

Localisation des activités métropolitaines : quels impacts sur le navettage à Montréal?

2011· article· fr· W2103109968 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Isabelle Thomas-Maret, Paul G. Lewis, Anick Laforest, David L. Métivier

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironnement urbain · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le phénomène de déconcentration urbaine constitue une réalité à laquelle de nombreuses métropoles doivent désormais faire face. Perturbant les modèles de localisation des activités à l’échelle métropolitaine, ce processus n’est pas sans bouleverser de nombreux paradigmes, notamment en ce qui a trait aux dynamiques de mobilité. Bien que le lien entre forme urbaine et navettage ait fait l’objet de nombreuses études, les enjeux de cette réorganisation spatiale demeurent mal connus, leurs résultats étant souvent contradictoires. Parallèlement, les préoccupations environnementales grandissantes des métropoles se traduisent par une multiplication des inventaires, plans et politiques visant à réduire leurs émissions de GES. Ainsi, quels impacts la localisation des activités métropolitaines, sous l’influence du phénomène de déconcentration des activités, peut-elle avoir sur le navettage métropolitain et, par conséquent, sur les émissions de GES reliées au transport? À Montréal, le secteur des transports s’avère effectivement crucial en termes de réduction des émissions de GES, ce qui fournit un cadre d’étude particulièrement intéressant pour répondre à cette question.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironnement urbainSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207