Institutional Aspects of Bus Rapid Transit – A Macroscopic Examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report investigated the institutional aspects of Bus Rapid Transit through a macroscopic examination of relevant issues ascertained through a literature review, a series of project team brainstorming meetings, and input from members of the Federal Transit Administration’s Bus Rapid Transit staff. The literature review provided insight into the history of Bus Rapid Transit concepts ranging from very early research in the United States in the late 1950s, continuing with dual mode systems and early busways in the 1960s and 1970s, international experiences in Latin America and Canada, and the return of interest in and research on Bus Rapid Transit in the U.S. Several dozen issues were identified and were grouped into the following nine categories: intergovernmental and inter-organizational; intra-transit agency; political; public relations andmarketing; funding and finance; labor; safety and liability; planning and land use; and the physical environment. The issues that were investigated for this macroscopic examination form the basis of a survey currently being administered to members of the U.S. Bus Rapid Transit Consortium, a group of seventeen transit agencies who are each interested in developing their own Bus Rapid Transit system. Responses will provide valuable insight into and comment on Bus Rapid Transit institutional issues actually being experienced. This project will continue with site-specific case study analyses of institutional issues.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".