Prospects for sustainable transportation in the Pacific Northwest: A comparison of Vancouver, Seattle and Portland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years there has been heightened concern among transportation researchers, policy analysts and environmentalists over the issue of sustainable transportation. In many respects this discussion has flowed from an earlier interest in assessing the environmental problems of transportation and their relation to urban form, especially the burdens created by an excessive dependence upon automobiles for personal transport (Gakenheimer, 1978; Stringer and Wenzel, 1976; Newman and Kenworthy, 1989). As with many other facets of sustainability discussions, sustainable transportation appears to be easier to describe than to define. Common threads in this discussion emphasize that sustainable transportation, in regard to passenger transport, should: \n \n• meet basic access and mobility needs in ways that do not degrade the environment; • not deplete the resource base upon which it is dependent; • serve multiple economic and environmental goals; • maximize efficiency in overall resource utilization; • improve or maintain access to employment, goods and services while shortening trip lengths and/or reducing the need to travel; and • enhance the liveability and human qualities of urban regions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".