Cyclist-Pedestrian Cohabitation: Lessons to learn from a pilot project on pedestrians streets in Montréal (Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among Montreal pedestrian streets summer projects in 2021, two locations (Mont-Royal Avenue and Wellington Street) have set up a pilot project considering the cohabitation between pedestrians and cyclists by authorizing cyclists to stay on their bike at a slow pace while it's forbidden on other pedestrian streets. This paper aims to document this cohabitation at three specific sites (two where cyclists are permitted and one where they are not) based on observations of cyclist's behaviours and their interactions with pedestrians. Direct observations of cyclists (n=1371) were conducted through a grid regrouping items about cyclist characteristics, actions and interactions with a pedestrian. The results show that cyclists' behaviours are fairly predictable and one third of them were involved in an interaction with a pedestrian. For the small number of cyclists who engaged in unsafe behaviours, young males and other vehicle types (i.e., Segways, rollerblades, cargo bikes, etc) are overrepresented.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".