Relentless Automobility: An analysis from three perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phenomenon of “peak-car”, the growth in the use of active and collective modes and a renewed interest in more dense, mixed and human scale urban developments, all raise the question of the decline of car mobilities. A three-perspective analysis framework is proposed to assess, on the one hand, whether this decline is real and, on the other hand, whether it is accompanied by a paradigm shift in transport and urban planning that would indicate the end of automobility. The question is applied specifically for the province of Quebec and its two metropolitan areas, Montreal and Quebec. As a first perspective, the analysis of motorization and automobile use indicators reveals a sustained increase in car mobility over the past two decades. As a second perspective, the analysis of official planning documents and framework policies for mobility and urban development reveals an adequate understanding of mobility issues, but an uneven recognition of dependence on the automobile. In addition, none of the municipal and metropolitan documents presents specific objectives for reducing car use or car ownership. Finally, from a third perspective, the priority given to some infrastructure projects are not consistent with the objectives and visions of planning documents. Indeed, the benefits expected from ambitious public transit projects are compromised by highway development projects in Montreal as well as in Quebec City. The justifications for these road projects come from a classic planning paradigm widely shown to be outdated and inadequate. The priority given to them seems to stem from political resistance to a paradigm shift. Taken together, these three perspectives tend to show that despite certain positive signs, the decline in automobile mobility, which would be based on a real shift of paradigm in transportation and urban planning, does not seem to have started in Quebec.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".