Are big city urban planners preparing for autonomous vehicles?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given that our urban centres have been dominated by the private car for a hundred years, this paper asks what is next for Canadian cities. Previous research on the future of urban mobility, and specifically city planning and autonomous vehicles, has been from an American or Australian context. Working from a uniquely Canadian perspective, this paper fills a gap in the research by analyzing data from twenty-six semi-structured interviews with Canadian planning professionals from Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg and Toronto. The interviews discuss how Canadian planners are preparing for new technologies, including autonomous vehicles, and increased privatization. We recommend that large cities move forward with autonomous vehicle research with a goal of improving mobility for all, while ensuring a strong agreement framework with all for-profit mobility providers is in place that requires robust data sharing agreements and appropriate consultation with municipalities before, during, and after launching. Further, planners should further embrace the political realities of their positions and advocate for equitable mobility for all residents both in their day-to-day work and in public engagement settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".