AHP-Based Approach for Location Planning of Pedestrian Zones: Application in Montréal, Canada
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
Location planning for pedestrian zones is a multifaceted problem. The selection of best location from a list of potential stations involves consideration of different technical, economical, environmental, and social factors. For some of these factors, numerical values can be provided, but the others are based on the qualitative data. In this paper, a multicriteria decision analysis approach is presented based on analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for location planning of pedestrian zones under lack of quantitative data. A decision-making committee comprised of representatives of city transportation officials, public administration, and city residents or users is formed to select the criteria/subcriteria for evaluating pedestrian zones. Five locations for pedestrian zones are considered for evaluation in the city of Montréal: namely, Downtown, Jean Drapeau, Olympic stadium, Old Montréal, and Saint Denis. The results of this study indicate that the downtown area is the best choice for a pedestrian zone. Sensitivity analysis is conducted to determine the influence of criteria and subcriteria weights on the decision-making process.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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