A Spatial and Temporal Comparative Analysis of the Effects of Land-Use Clusters on Activity Spaces in Three Quebec Cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous literature on transportation and land use has focused on the effect of individual land-use variables, such as population and employment density, and on measures of transportation demand, such as vehicle kilometers traveled and mode split. In contrast, our work uses activity spaces, a relatively unexplored measure of travel dispersal, as a dependent variable and neighborhood clusters to capture the effect of land use on this variable. This paper is an extension of previous research that dealt with Montreal exclusively and similar methods are used to compare three cities (Montreal, Quebec City, and Sherbrooke) over multiple years (1998–2008). We control and tests for the possibility of residential location self-selection bias through simultaneous equation modeling. The main findings are that (i) activity spaces are clearly linked to land use (through neighborhood clusters), as well as to overall city size; (ii) activity spaces appear to be growing over time where employment centers are fixed; and (iii) exogeneity in explanatory variables cannot be rejected.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".