MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402166246 · doi:10.32920/26866666

Marginalized Communities and Transit Development: A Study of Light Rail Transit Lines in Toronto, Canada and Area

2024· preprint· en· W4402166246 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Debra Gervais

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransit (satellite)Transit-oriented developmentLight rail transitRail transitTransport engineeringRegional scienceLight railGeographyEconomic geographyPublic transportBusinessEconomic growthPolitical scienceEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Province of Ontario, Canada is preparing to update their transportation infrastructure to accommodate a projected increase in the province's population. Connecting people, reducing congestion and emissions in the Toronto area is the main focus of these transit development projects. It is understood, however, that upgrading infrastructure is a vital undertaking for every community. However, it seems as though decision makers don't always consider the effects these projects have on racialized and/or low-income people in their communities. When making plans, are enquiries made to see if benefits from these networks are evenly distributed and experienced? Studies examining neighbourhood change are numerous. Indeed, the effects, both negative and positive, and their outcomes are widely studied. However, this study considers neighbourhoods in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) where transit development will have an influence on particular communities. Additionally, this study's primary focus is Light Rail Transit (LRT). It looks at marginalization in GTA communities (as defined in the Ontario Marginalization Index) in relation to light rail transit development in construction, or planned, to see if they are more likely to be impacted at a regional level. The spatial patterns of these populations are explored through Global and Local Moran's I. Although observations are made on a regional scale, the local case of Cooksville, Mississauga is also explored to provide context.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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