MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119203796 · doi:10.1080/00420980120094605

Understanding the Movement of Goods, Not People: Issues, Evidence and Potential

2001· article· en· W2119203796 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Studies · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban and Freight Transport Logistics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Movement (music)Goods and servicesLand useOrder (exchange)BusinessTraffic congestionQuality (philosophy)Transport engineeringPublic economicsEconomicsGeographyEconomyEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The movement of goods or freight occurs in every urban area. However, such movements have not received the same level of attention as that given to the movements of people. We do not understand the effects of several massive changes affecting urban freight movements. This paper presents a comparative review of planning studies of the movement of goods in order to assess our current understanding and to provide a context for a research agenda on the movement of urban goods. The studies reviewed provide basic data such as time of day activity, trip and vehicle characteristics. However, they do not provide an understanding of the key relationships that underlie the movement of goods, including those related to land use/transport interaction. Basic research into an integrated modelling effort for urban goods movement (UGM) is needed to address issues associated with congestion and air quality that affect most major urban centres.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.093 · 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