Bibliographic record
Abstract
This portfolio consists of four sections written as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Masters in Environmental Studies (MES) degree. Section 1 consists of my research and written contributions towards a report co-written with Sean Hertel and Roger Keil entitled Switching Tracks: Towards Transit Equity in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (Hertel et al, 2015). My contribution comprises Parts 3-7, where a definition of transit equity is advanced, how inequity impacts different publics is highlighted, and some solutions used to address transit inequities are explored. The contents of Section 1 sets the stage for each subsequent section. Section 2 is a long abstract and presentation prepared for an academic conference, co-written and presented with Sean Hertel, intended to situate and connect the work conducted in Section 1 within an academic milieu. The presentation in Section 2 closes with questions posed for further research on how to identify symptoms of transit equity and how to situate transit equity objectives within the planning profession. A proposed methodology towards future research was proposed as a launching point for the research project contribution in Section 3. Finally, Section 2 is intended to help continue the dialogue on transit equity sparked by the Greater Toronto Suburban Working Group (GTSWG), co-chaired by Roger Keil and Sean Hertel, presented by The City Institute of York University (CITY) and hosted by Metrolinx, bringing together academics, planners, community activists, representatives from the development industry and non-profit service sector. Section 3 consists of a research project conducted as a contribution towards a report co-written with Sean Hertel and Roger Keil entitled Next Stop: Equity: Routes to Fairer Transit Access in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (Hertel et al, 2016). I used a case study approach anchored by the literature review conducted in Section 1 to explore five specific neighbourhoods in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) to illustrate how transit inequity manifests in various ways at the neighbourhood scale. Section 4 of the portfolio is an article co-written with Sean Hertel to engage with the planning profession, published in the Ontario Planning Journal. Section 4 presents a synopsis of the work on transit equity in Section 1, Section 2, and Section 3. The article establishes the imperative for planners to be active participants in achieving transit equity. The article advances a working definition of transit equity as it applies to transit planning, why equity in transit planning is important for achieving provincial planning objectives, and how transit equity objectives are situated within the planning regime in Ontario.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".