Multiscale Transit Oriented Development (TOD) for sustainable communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transit Oriented Development in districts and cities planning is dependent on multiple factors including: location, context, population density and redevelopment strategy. Transit Oriented Development Institute (US national planning organization to promote sustainable communities around rail stations) identifies ten principles which characterize the TOD communities and among them: stations and communications hubs located in sites with highest ridership potential, higher density mixed-used, walkable development in ½ mile radius from station, pedestrian oriented communication with retain and café streets, public squares in proximity of stations, reduce of parking space, multi-modal connections and stations which act as generators of communities redevelopment. The research examines the concept of TOD on chosen case studies, describes the pattern of urban form which best suites TOD districts and cities and evaluate current practices. The research examines the concept of TOD on chosen case studies, describes the pattern of urban form which best suites TOD districts and cities and evaluates current practices. The paper is based on analysis of TOD projects on different scales: from TOD introduced at international scale (e.g. the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system in the selected Latin America large cities), at national scale in large metropolitan cities (e.g. in high density Central Business Districts of Dalian city in China) and at urban, urban fringe and neighborhood scale of Edmonton in Canada. The literature review study examines the patterns of transit-oriented development and highlights current planning practices. The research was based on identifying contemporary case studies, through the analysis of literature, reports, government and policy documents, conference proceedings and websites of international networks relevant to transit-oriented development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".