MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411665302 · doi:10.4236/gep.2025.136017

Pathways to Sustainability in Rural Communities: Case Study of Active Transportation and Eco-Tourism at Pinawa, Manitoba, Canada

2025· article· en· W4411665302 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Parinaz Joneidi Shariat Zadeh, Shirley Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geoscience and Environment Protection · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsSustainabilityTourismEnvironmental planningRural tourismGeographyBusinessUrban sustainabilityEnvironmental resource managementTourism geographyEnvironmental scienceEcologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Active transportation (AT) strategies improve community living, health, and the environment in all communities, including rural ones. Pinawa is a small Canadian town in Manitoba that won national awards for active living but wanted an AT plan for further improvement. We undertook a case study of AT priorities of Pinawa’s community members and tourists through 22 semi-structured interviews, site observation, mapping, and cost-benefit analysis. Prioritizing AT users in infrastructure planning and design offers Pinawa many health, environmental, eco-tourism, and economic development benefits. Community priorities to enhance AT are improving infrastructure with bike lanes, sidewalks, crosswalks, and trails. Other planning factors, such as wayfinding signage, bike rentals, and shuttles, would further promote AT. This paper contributes to understanding the role of AT in rural communities, providing practical recommendations for infrastructure and policy changes.

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 score0.366

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0290.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geoscience and Environment ProtectionSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207