Densification ou prolongement des réseaux de transport structurants ? Une recension des écrits sur les coûts et les bénéfices attendus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In considering the prioritization of transit system development projects in Montreal, this report examines the benefits and costs associated with different expansion options such as extensions and densification. It provides a literature review that first identifies key themes in the benefit-cost analysis associated with transit system development. It then uses existing empirical results to draw conclusions about the expected impacts of extension and densification projects. Dans la réflexion sur la priorisation des projets de développement des réseaux structurants de transport en commun à Montréal, ce rapport s’intéresse à la question des bénéfices et des coûts associées à différentes options d’expansion telles que les prolongements et la densification. On y propose une revue de littérature qui permet dans un premier temps de dégager les thèmes clés de l’analyse avantages-coûts associés au développement des réseaux de transport en commun. On se sert ensuite de résultats empiriques existants pour tirer des conclusions sur les impacts attendus des projets de prolongement et de densification.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".