MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769736877 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v10n6p234

Public Transport in the Gulf Region: Is the Development of a BRT System a Viable Option for Doha?

2017· article· en· W2769736877 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Simona Azzali

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPublic-Private Partnership Projects
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQatar National Research FundFonds National de la Recherche LuxembourgQatar Foundation
KeywordsBus rapid transitContext (archaeology)Capital cityPublic transportTrack (disk drive)BusinessGovernment (linguistics)Developing countryCapital (architecture)Transport engineeringEnvironmental planningEconomic growthGeographyEconomicsComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motorisation is increasing globally, especially in major cities of Asia and the Gulf region. To illustrate, over the last decades, Doha, the capital city of Qatar, has experienced a fast urban growth along with a wide increase in the need for new transportation options. Recently, the Qatari Government has planned to improve Doha’s transport system, by developing projects that include a new metro and light rail scheme. On the other hand, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)’s track record provides a compelling case for more cities to consider it as a transit priority. Within this context, this article critically examines three relevant factors (implementation time, cost effectiveness, and performance) for the successful dissemination of BRTs in relation to the city of Doha. The article argues that the implementation of a BRT scheme is a beneficial and effective alternative to the metro scheme that is under construction in the city.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicPublic-Private Partnership ProjectsFrench-language works237,207