Results of 2003 Transportation Management Association Survey: Analysis of Evolving Characteristics of Transportation Management Associations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2003 Transportation Management Association Survey was conducted to collect and analyze survey data to better understand national and international trends in the development and operation of transportation management associations (TMAs). TMAs provide a unique organizational structure for the delivery of mobility management services. They serve as a public-private forum for those who are directly affected to address localized transportation issues through partnership efforts. Comparisons were made with data from similar surveys conducted in 1993 and 1998. With the exception of the Netherlands, transportation management efforts in European nations are implemented through organizational structures different from TMAs as we know them in the United States and Canada. During the past 10 years TMAs have been moving toward less formalized organizational structures and fewer members but with a greater diversification in the way in which service areas are defined and in the types of members. TMAs rely less on member dues and more on federal grants. They are offering a broader range of services, reflecting efforts to tailor services to meet the needs of a greater variety of travel markets, in addition to commuters. In contrast to 1993 most TMAs now conduct employee and program evaluations. However, approximately 65% of TMAs do not have a strategic plan and 40% do not use an annual or biennial work plan. Canadian TMAs have formed to accomplish missions similar to those of their U.S. counterparts. The first Canadian TMA began in 1995, and the largest member group across all Canadian TMAs is government employers.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".