MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173890128

Meeting the Public’s Need for Transit Options: Characteristics of Socially Equitable Transit Networks

2015· article· en· W2173890128 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

VenueITE journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)Metropolitan areaTransit (satellite)BusinessPublic transportSocial equalityPublic economicsTransport engineeringPublic administrationPolitical scienceEconomicsEngineeringGeographyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper outlines how key characteristics of the transit network affect social equity and provides insight on how equity concerns can be meaningfully incorporated into transit project analysis. The United States has several legislatively-required equity considerations built into project funding and planning, including the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) “New Starts and Small Starts” requirement to double-weight lower-income riders when scoring projects and to consider housing affordability near transit projects, as well as the Civil Rights Act Title IV requirement to consider the impacts of fare or service changes on minority populations. Canada does not have similar federally mandated legal requirements, but social equity is an important consideration for transit network planning regardless, as transit is essential for enabling and improving social equity in metropolitan regions.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.252 · 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