MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042275401 · doi:10.3808/jeil.202000029

Assessing the Impact of Urban Form on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Household Vehicles: A Review

2020· review· en· W3042275401 on OpenAlexafffund
Xian-Liang Tian, Chunjiang An, Zhikun Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Informatics Letters · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGreenhouse gasAir pollutantsEnvironmental scienceNatural resource economicsLand usePollutantEnvironmental planningBusinessEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental protectionAir pollutionEconomicsEngineeringCivil engineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban growth is associated with a number of environmental issues. One of the most serious environmental concerns is the air pollutants and increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This study presents a comprehensive review of the impact of urban form on the GHG emissions from household vehicles. A comparative study encompassing the methods used for identifying the relationship between urban form and vehicle GHG emissions was conducted. Household vehicle GHG emissions in different urban forms were investigated, drawing upon various existing studies. The internal variables that define urban form, such as density, connectivity, land use mix, and accessibility, were further discussed with respect to their degree of influence on household vehicle GHG emissions. Finally, a discussion of opportunities in urban form which may be conducive to household vehicle GHG emission mitigation in the long term was presented.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Informatics LettersSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207