MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415916977 · doi:10.1080/14649357.2025.2574656

Innovating for Uncertain Futures: How Transportation Planners in Toronto Adapt Planning and Institutional Processes in Anticipation of Automated Vehicles

2025· article· en· W4415916977 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlanning Theory & Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTechnische Universität Wien BibliothekTechnische Universität WienDaimler und Benz Stiftung
KeywordsAnticipation (artificial intelligence)Transportation planningUrban planningStrategic planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite more than a decade of automated vehicle trials on public roads, the anticipated driverless revolution has yet to materialise. Nevertheless, cities have been urged to manage the transition. This article examines the merits of proactive planning, analysing automated vehicle initiatives in Toronto. Employing a framework for social innovation in planning practice, I demonstrate how, over a ten-year period, municipal planners gradually introduced organizational and practice-based changes. Proactive efforts have strengthened institutional responsiveness and directed the private sector-driven transition towards local needs. While transformative change has been restrained, foundations are laid for a purposeful shift towards new logics of action.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.308 · 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