MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137067883

Financing public transport: case studies of international and Australian cities

2013· article· en· W2137067883 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransport Research Forum · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic transportBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Public sectorCorporate governanceNegotiationSubsidyEconomic growthFinanceEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the Gold Coast has been successful in negotiating $1 billion in joint funds to build its light rail system and to improve travel between its urban activity centres, the community of the Newcastle region is currently trying to prevent the closure of the existing rail service. The urban futures of these two major Australian cities could head in different directions because of their future transport framework in the city centres. One key explanation lies in their ability to source funding for improving the public transport systems. This study examines options used for funding the public transport sector in medium-size cities in Canada, Germany and France, where governance and the level of economic development have some similarities to Australia. Comparisons are then made with the situation here – Newcastle (NSW) and the Gold Coast (QLD). By exploring the differences in funding sources and their intergovernmental funding arrangements, this paper concludes with options for enhancing the funding capability of the public transport sector in regional Australian cities which can be further explored or developed. When considering upgrading public transport services to enhance accessibility, energy efficiency, and social equality – as well as impacts on land value and urban structure – it is essential to understand cities’ funding capability in the public transport sector. In fact, funding arrangements reflect the government’s approach to planning and policy-making, and influence the quality of services provided. Hence, comparative case studies on funding the public transport sectors in different cities contribute to further identifying institutional solutions to advanced public transport outcomes. This paper examines funding arrangements of the public transport sector in medium-size cities with populations between 300 thousand and 3 million in Canada, Germany and France, to compare with Australian cities such as Newcastle and the Gold Coast. By exploring the similarities and differences in funding mechanisms adopted within their public transport governance structure, this paper identifies possibilities for enhancing funding capability of the public transport sector in regional Australia.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.265 · 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