Design and Implementation of Transit Services: Guidelines for smaller communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transit plays an essential role in improving the social, economic, and environmental conditions of Canada’s cities and communities. While there is greater political attention to serving transit needs in larger urban areas, transit services are increasingly vital to improving the well-being of small communities. There are unique challenges small and rural Canadian communities face in providing transit services, compared to large, more urban areas. The approaches to planning for transit and the range of solutions appropriate for providing transit is broader for small communities compared to larger urban centres. Recognizing these unique conditions, the purpose of these guidelines is to provide guidance to planning and transportation professionals in planning for transit services in small communities. The guidelines were developed to tailor to a wide range of different stages of a transit service provision in the community: starting a new service; expanding an existing service; maintaining a service in potential decline. Recognizing that unique characteristics (e.g. land uses, travel patterns, demographics, economic conditions) of small towns and villages, these developed guidelines are intended to identify the directions and considerations required to planning and implementing a new or improved transit 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 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 | 0.041 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.010 |
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".