MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2522955145 · doi:10.1177/0885412216667899

Infrastructure or Attraction? Image-led Planning and the Intangible Objectives of Rapid Transit Projects

2016· article· en· W2522955145 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher D. Higgins, Pavlos Kanaroglou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Planning Literature · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransit (satellite)BusinessImage (mathematics)Urban planningTransport engineeringTransportation planningPublic transportComputer scienceEngineeringCivil engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many rapid transit projects are justified by a desire to achieve intangible city image and branding goals such as promoting messages of modernity, economic growth, global competitiveness, and world city status. The relationship between rapid transit and city image is poorly understood in the planning literature. In response, this article presents a theoretical framework of rapid transit in image-led planning. The framework and examples of rapid transit in image-led planning in practice reveal that while important, rapid transit alone is not a sufficient condition for wholesale image change, and image-led planning must be mindful of a host of important practical considerations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Planning LiteratureSame topicUrban Planning and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207