MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406595424 · doi:10.4236/gep.2025.131007

Sustainability and Active Transportation at Universities: Case Study of Fort Garry Campus, University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada

2025· article· en· W4406595424 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geoscience and Environment Protection · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityUniversity campusGeographyEnvironmental sciencePolitical scienceForestryAgricultural economicsEngineeringCivil engineeringEconomicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The environmental and health implications of Active Transportation (AT) strategies at the University of Manitoba’s Fort Garry campus in Canada were investigated, focusing on walking, biking, and public transit use of students and staff. We analyzed connectivity, planning, and campus-city integration through mapping, observation, and transportation plan analysis. We found large gaps in connectivity of AT routes within the campus, a lack of AT planning, and poor AT city-campus integration, which explain why AT is decreasing rather than increasing, undermining sustainability on campus. Investing in biking, walking, and bus infrastructure and programs can be a practical, educational, and economical solution to negative environmental, safety, and health impacts posed by vehicles. Universities like the University of Manitoba (UM) have the potential to be leaders in creating an AT ecosystem that mitigates climate change through transportation and turns around the global problem of youth inactivity.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · 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