MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104700720

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING FOR THE TRUE NORTH CENTRE: PERCEPTION VS. REALITY

2003· article· en· W2104700720 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard S Tebinka, K Mruss, Susan Chapman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Parking Systems Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntownEntertainmentTransport engineeringPedestrianPerceptionParking guidance and informationOrder (exchange)Public transportBusinessEngineeringArchitectural engineeringAdvertisingGeographyPolitical scienceFinancePsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new multi-use entertainment complex, the True North Centre, is currently under construction in downtown Winnipeg on the site of the former Eatons building. Before construction of the complex could begin, several approvals were applied for and granted by the City of Winnipeg. Among the application supporting documents was a review of transportation issues related to the proposed facility. A common public perception existed that insufficient parking and traffic capacity was available to support this type of facility in downtown Winnipeg. Traffic, parking, transit, and pedestrian issues were examined in order to report on the actual situation as opposed to the perceptions. This paper looks at specific issues that were evaluated for the True North Centre from the perspective of fitting a facility of this nature into a well-established downtown area. For patrons of a multi-use entertainment complex, parking is a primary consideration that can a facility's viabilitiy. Patrons are looking for parking that is available close to their destination, easy to access and reasonably priced. One of the primary obstacles that needed to be overcome with the True North Centre was the perception that a large supply of reasonably priced, accessible parking was not available close to the proposed facility. To overcome perceptions regarding parking at a downtown entertainment complex, the proponents had to take advantage of inherent excess capacity in the downtown system that would be available during off-peak hours. Numerous concerns were also raised that streets would be over capacity if a large facility were built in the downtown instead of a suburban location. The study identified excess capacity in the downtown arterial system that was built to handle weekday peak volumes. The paper will illustrate how the existing excess capacity can accommodate the expected demand with the new complex without requiring construction of new parking facilities or additional street capacity.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Parking Systems ResearchFrench-language works237,207