MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183899846 · doi:10.36939/cjur/vol30no1/art324

Ride-hailing applications in Vancouver, Canada: Representation, local empowerment and resistance

2021· article· en· W3183899846 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Isamara Vasconcelos, Peter Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of urban research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersGlobal Affairs Canada
KeywordsNormativeVariety (cybernetics)PoliticsResistance (ecology)Government (linguistics)Representation (politics)Civil societyEmpowermentSubject (documents)AuthorizationPublic administrationBusinessPolitical sciencePolitical economySociologyLawComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technological applications have caused a revolution in the way individual transportation rides are offered and taken in cities all over the world. The adoption and regulation of ride-hailing has been the subject of heated discussion involving elected officials, bureaucrats, industry proponents, the traditional taxicab industry, and civil society. To implement ride-hailing, proponents and platform operators confront an intricate web of decision-making processes and institutional politics. In this way, existing normative processes shape the emergent regulation of such transportation network companies. This article analyzes the case of Vancouver, Canada, one of the largest cities in North America where ride-hailing companies belatedly secured authorization to operate from the provincial government in 2019. Focusing on the policy debate since 2012, the research identifies the interactions and processes of interest representation among various actors regarding this new transportation technology. The analysis shows how a variety of political, economic and regulatory strategies contributed to the delayed adoption.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of urban researchSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207