DEFINING AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE: BIRTH OF THE LIGHT RAIL MOVEMENT IN NORTH AMERICA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Covering three subjects, this paper sets forth conditions that led to the beginning of the light rail movement in North America. The first subject is a history of ideas and conditions that led to the National Conference on Light Rail held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in June 1975. The second and third subjects are summaries of the ideas and conditions that led to the adoption of light rail transit in Edmonton, Alberta, and San Diego, California, the first regions to adopt light rail in Canada and the United States, respectively. The information presented relies primarily on written documents and interviews with people who participated in events described herein. It is argued that light rail transit was a product of social movements of the late 1960s and 1970s when, for the first time in American history, large numbers of people looked to the future with a sense of foreboding but at the same time felt empowered to control the future. Many thought that they could reverse the fortunes of transit, thereby improving urban conditions, by embracing light rail transit. This was a northern European concept that strove to achieve the level of service of rapid transit at a fraction of the cost. Although the American transit industry was ambivalent to the idea activists championed it, which the National Conference on Light Rail disseminated to the planning and transportation engineering community throughout the United States and Canada. At the same time the same forces led to light rail adoption in Edmonton and San Diego.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".