An Octopus and a circle at the basis of a framework for the evaluation of sustainable mobility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Worldwide, transportation authorities are keen to implement sustainable development measures and to move toward a more sustainable mobility for people and goods. However, this implementation entails a rise in the need for a sustainable development assessment framework for mobility, in order to compare different projects or to monitor a given area. This paper addresses the issue of conceptualization and standardization of the evaluation of sustainable development in transportation, by proposing a framework, which seeks to meet the various needs of transportation planners. This framework aims to provide an exhaustive view of the sustainability features (through its three main dimensions), as well as to clarify the concept of sustainability in transportation by embedding links between actions and impacts. This paper presents the basis of the framework developed as an interactive tool: (1) a representation named ‘Octopus’ categorizing the impact of mobility on the three dimensions of sustainable development and (2) a circular representation, named ‘Causal circle’, which integrates causal links between actions and impacts on these same dimensions.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".