MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2164416803 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v3n4p145

Investigating the Occupants' Behaviors and Perceptions Concerning the Sustainable Transportation System in Tehran City

2010· article· en· W2164416803 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hashem Hashem Nejad, Morteza Sedigh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainable transportBusinessIncentiveSubsidyInvestment (military)PedestrianExternalitySustainable developmentSustainable cityLimitingTransport engineeringEnvironmental planningUrban planningSustainabilityEconomicsEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A transport crisis of major proportions is looming on the horizon in many of the world's cities. Road travel speeds during peak hours have already fallen below that of horse-drawn carriages, popular 80 years ago. Increasing motorization and air pollution threaten economic development as well as the environment. However, opportunities exist to solve these problems by limiting the demand for transport without affecting socio- economic development. An efficient and equitable urban transport policy can achieve its objectives by using a combination of new investment, economic incentives as well as adequate planning and regulatory measures. This will reduce overall travel and ensure the travel that occurs is safe, efficient and environmentally sustainable, as it will be discussed in this article. This paper investigates how sustainable transportation concerns systems, policies, and technologies and also its aims for the efficient transit of goods and services, and sustainable freight and delivery systems. The results show that there are important key issues in sustainable transportation such as Access not mobility; Moving people not cars; Reclaim city space for walking and pedaled vehicles and Stop subsidizing private motor vehicle. Besides the design of vehicle-free city planning, along with pedestrian and bicycle friendly design of neighborhoods is a critical aspect for grassroots activities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable Development→Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→