Acheson Industrial Area Transit Feasibility Study: A Case for Vanpools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parkland County required a transit feasibility study for the Acheson Industrial Area. Acheson is located just west of Edmonton near the City of Spruce Grove. It is home to over 5,000 employees and has considerable room to grow. The feasibility study analysed three basic options: 1. Conventional Transit 2. Bus pool 3. Vanpool The conventional transit option faced difficult challenges. To overcome these challenges the conventional service assumed a drop-in service using existing or planned services between Edmonton and Spruce Grove. The operating costs of the shuttle and the construction cost of a hub made conventional transit relatively costly. The buspool option is essentially a long term charter. The bus would be sized to fit onto most employers' sites, allowing service to each employer's door. The vanpool option offers door to door service for all users. A seven passenger mini-van would be driven by an Acheson area employee. The driver picks-up each vanpooler then drops them off at their work sites during the morning commute, reversing travel in the afternoon. The driver could use the van on evenings and weekends in return for vanpool driving. The analysis found key differences between the buspool and vanpool options: Vanpools are easier to scale with passenger demand; Vanpool passengers will pay a higher fare; Vanpools are more convenient in terms of both travel time and door to door service; Vanpool subsidies will be lower; Vanpools have lower financial risk. These differences gave preference to the vanpool option. (A) For the covering abstract of this conference see ITRD record number 201309RT334E.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".