Differences in transport and land use in thirteen comparable Australian, American, Canadian and European cities between 1995/6 to 2005/6 and their implications for more sustainable transport
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper summarises the findings of thirteen comparable North American, Australian and European cities in relation to a range of transport and land use-related indicators and their changes between 1995/96 and 2005/06. The trend comparison helps to highlight the influence of existing land use and transport policies in different cities and an examination of land use and transport vision documents in the thirteen cities shows where they are heading and the likely effectiveness of their policies. Overall, the data show that there have been some improvements in urban transport in terms of growth in public transport and reductions in car use in the decade considered, but there are also some negative trends. Generally the data show that whilst public transport has been holding its own or improving in many cities, much more needs to be done for it to compete better with the car. The paper will highlight some overall general recommendations in relation to urban transport and land use in order to move more consistently towards sustainable transport.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it