Bibliographic record
Abstract
For nearly one hundred years, from approximately the 1830s to the early decades of the twentieth century, the form of many North American cities was dominated by the pattern of mass transportation routes. Each successive form of transportation from the horse drawn omni-bus to the electric street railways, had visible effects upon the growth, shape and internal organization of urban agglomerations. After fifty years of almost sole reliance on private transportation, the last decade has witnessed a significantly increased interest in rail rapid transit with an often claimed, but rarely thoroughly analyzed expectation, that the revitalized and improved mass transportation routes will ultimately piece the fragmented environment of today's metropolises into a manageable whole again. This study treats one aspect of the multi-dimensional interaction between the introdution/ operation of rapid transit lines and subsequent restructuring of the spatial distribution of activities in the urban field: the rate of development of areas in the proximity of rapid transit stations. Explanations for the aparent difference in the rate of new construction around various stations is sought not in terms of the traditional accessibility concept, but rather in the environmental context within which each station is placed. Drawing from a rather distinct subdivision of urban research and extensive data analysis, the components of the environmental context and their relative importance in exerting influence on the spatial distribution of new construction were identified. During the course of the study a simple simulation model was developed in order to capture the dynamics of changes within the environmental context and consequently to assist in anticipating the spatial distribution of new constructions or replacements of existing phyisical stock in the vicinity of rapid transit stations. The emphasis is placed on these specific structural changes because the consequences of locational and investment decisions that result in significant alteration or renewal of buildings represent a more substantial modification in the internal organization of the city than those resulting from the continuous shifting and filtering of activities within the standing stock.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".