Système de classification du confort et de la sécurité des voies cyclables canadiennes (Can-BICS) : convention d’appellation commune des aménagements cyclables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il n’existe pas de convention d’appellation pour les aménagements cyclables valable pour toutes les villes. Notre but était d’établir une nomenclature commune pour les aménagements cyclables au Canada qui soit pertinente en contexte de santé publique. Nous avons examiné plusieurs guides de conception technique des transports ainsi que des directives en santé publique pour mettre au point un système de classification des aménagements cyclables, soit le Système de classification du confort et de la sécurité des voies cyclables canadiennes (ou Can-BICS, de l’anglais Canadian Bikeway Comfort and Safety). Ce système à trois niveaux répartit les aménagements cyclables en cinq catégories, selon leur degré de sécurité et leur confort pour les usagers. Adopter une nomenclature uniforme comme le système Can-BICS va contribuer aux mesures de surveillance régionale et nationale en santé publique, à la planification et à la durabilité.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".