MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404500020 · doi:10.1080/13604813.2024.2420527

A new urbanity in a suburban region: the perceived (im)possibilities of light rail among residents and stakeholders in Canada’s Waterloo Region

2024· article· en· W4404500020 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Margaret Ellis‐Young, Brian Doucet

Bibliographic record

VenueCity · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsUrbanityLight railGeographyEnvironmental planningBusinessRegional scienceEconomic geographyPolitical scienceEconomyEconomicsLawPublic transport

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent scholarship on light rail transit (LRT) connects this infrastructure to broader processes of urban transformation, bringing to the forefront its significance beyond transportation functionality. However, much of the transportation literature does not adequately explore light rail’s diverse meanings. In this article, we draw on 65 semi-structured interviews with residents living along the new LRT line in Waterloo Region, Canada, as well as 20 key stakeholders, to identify the infrastructure’s perceived roles with respect to city building, urban identity, and neighbourhood change. We investigate how residents ascribe meaning to the LRT, and the extent to which these meanings align with stakeholders’ growth management objectives. In contrast to this focused planning rationale, the LRT evokes for residents a broader range of (im)possibilities that reflect their class positions and understandings of (sub)urban life in the region. Residents’ perspectives underline light rail’s implication in producing middle-class urbanity beyond its role in supporting an intensified, revitalized urban form. Here, light rail also reinforces existing urban middle-class identities and aspirations, which conflict with both dominant suburban identities and the experiences and fears of lower-income residents living along the route. These findings interrogate who is included in the type of city an LRT helps construct.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCitySame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207