Viva: Case Study and Evaluation of Branded Bus Rapid Transit Infrastructure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distinctive design, passenger amenities and a unique system-wide identity are desirable elements of any rapid transit system. These factors are of particular importance in a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, which may face greater hurdles to public acceptance, and also have less visible infrastructure than a comparable rail system. In BRT, high-quality design and passenger amenities send a positive message to riders, positioning the system in the transportation market place as a worthy alternative to driving. In addition, distinctive elements of visual continuity throughout the system ensure that transit is visible and apparent in the community, as well as legible to the user. The system as a whole should have an appealing, cohesive visual identity, while at the same time respecting the varying character of the neighborhoods and districts in its service area. This paper presents a case study in the development of architecture, graphics and brand creative as elements of visual distinction and continuity on the physical assets of Viva, a new-start Bus Rapid Transit system in York Region, Ontario. It also presents consumer research demonstrating the efficacy of various design elements in promoting public awareness and positive perceptions of the service.
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 | 0.018 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".