TOD as a Local Public Policy Instrument for Coordinating Land Use and Transportation: The Case of Sainte-Therese in the Montreal Metropolitan Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is generally seen as a North American urban planning model typified by higher density mixed-use developments linked to an efficient transit network operating on exclusive right-of-way. This urban form is thought to encourage more sustainable mobility behavior among city residents. However, TOD projects are rarely analyzed from the point of view of the actions and the processes that enable functional integration between land use and transportation at a local level. Developing an understanding of these processes is particularly important in the context of Greater Montreal, where multiple TOD areas are planned as a part of the implementation of the Metropolitan Land Use and Development Plan. Our case study of TOD implementation in Sainte-Therese, a city in the Greater Montreal area, is based on the notion of TOD as a public policy coordination instrument. The adoption, production and integration of this new instrument brought together local and metropolitan land-use and transportation stakeholders: TOD fostered a dynamic of cooperation, characterized by collective leadership, mutual adjustments of various interests and actions, and a progressive incremental mode of action.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".