MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206712705 · doi:10.26686/wgtn.17013524

From Cycleway to Urbanism: Planning for Coastal Cycleway

2015· dissertation· en· W4206712705 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Donghwi Roh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean CommissionMinistry of Business, Innovation and EmploymentGreater Wellington Regional CouncilMcGill UniversityPortland State University
KeywordsCyclingUrbanismGlobeUrban planningPoliticsPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningGeographyBusinessEngineeringCivil engineeringArchitectureLawPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A strategic use of cycling to create liveable and healthier cities is increasingly common in cities across the globe and among forward-thinking urban designers, policy makers or political entities who often improve bicycle infrastructure and install bicycle supporting policies to augment urban cycling (Pucher & Buehler 2012). Yet, cycling can do more than improving urban mobility and health. As pedal-powered vehicles are also means for cultural and artistic expression, subcultural social interaction (Fincham 2007), economic opportunity and urban servicing (Lorenz & Bufton 2011) which is reflected in geographically distinct bicycle cultures (Pelzer 2010). There is an increasing focus on cycle planning by local and regional governments throughout New Zealand. However there is a tendency to design cycle route in isolation, not approaching it as an urbanistic issue. In August 2014, Prime Minister John Key has announced $100 million in new funding that will be made available over the next four years to accelerate cycleways in urban centres. There is strong growth in cycling trails internationally, and in New Zealand there is also strong demand for family based cycling activities and products. Should more cycleways be provided and improved, and if so, how should they be planned? My project will attempt to go beyond the set aims to create more urbanistic approach to cycleway. This research draws upon an idea of the Great Harbour Way (GHW) - Te Aranui o Poneke, initiated by group of walkers and cyclists being a concept to develop and market a 75km shared pedestrian and cycle path around the shoreline of Wellington Harbour. The project aims to promote a walkway and cycleway as an enjoyable and convenient form of travelling around the harbour of Wellington, New Zealand. However, the way it has been conceived, the GHW undermines its possibilities. Our cycling infrastructure needs to evolve not only from transport or engineering perspective but also with architecture perspective to respond to those changing demands on the issues of cycleway planning. This aim of this study is to provide a greater ambition towards GHW by planning orientated research which could increase the numbers, activity of and engagement of cyclists with a particular focus on the Great Harbour Way cycle route. Firstly, the thesis briefly goes over the current status of cycling, addressing the increasing popularity and role of utilitarian cycling in Wellington. Secondly, the study will review and discusses previous cycling planning theories and discuss different models of cycle route planning. In this part, it will also take the project of New Plymouth Coastal Walkway, and Norwegian National Tourist Routes as a case study, discussing the planning strategy of how to implement cycling in our city. The case studies show that the entire visitor experience is important, not just the cycling aspect. This is particularly true for those markets whose primary motivation is not cycling. Accommodation, services, information, scenic values and other activities combine to make the experience more appealing to a broader range of visitors. Thirdly, the thesis proposes a cycling supportive architectural interventions at three different sites and scales to catalyse the GHW project. Last part of the study tried to resolves the complex access problems of the site through integrated planning/landscape architecture thereby creating a usable, functional and adaptable plan for the Wellington to Petone link. Conclusions of the design proposals and future suggestions are included in the last chapter.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→