MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407472448 · doi:10.4018/ijepr.368846

Strava Metro Data as an Urban Planning Input

2025· article· en· W4407472448 on OpenAlexaff
Pamela Robinson, Peter Johnson, Madison Vernooy, Leorah Klein

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of E-Planning Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Cities and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransport engineeringUrban planningEnvironmental planningComputer scienceGeographyBusinessCivil engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fitness platform Strava gathers data from its users that the company repackages and shares through its Strava Metro platform. Municipalities have been using these data to inform their active transportation planning efforts, but less is known about how they use these data and account for their limits. Through interviews with municipal staff who are long-standing Metro users, this paper examines how decision-makers use these data and mitigate for their limitations. It concludes with reflections on the role of third-party data in urban planning efforts and their impact on planning outcomes.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of E-Planning ResearchSame topicSmart Cities and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207