MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W569260037

Oil Vulnerability in the Greater Toronto Area: Spatial Analyses of Socioeconomic Risks from Higher Urban Fuel Prices

2014· article· en· W569260037 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Saidal Akbari, Khandker Nurul Habib

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 93rd Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulnerability (computing)Socioeconomic statusGeographyVulnerability indexRing roadNatural resource economicsBusinessEconomicsPopulationEnvironmental healthClimate change
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rising cost of fossil fuel is a recognized phenomenon, but its impact at the household level is still widely unknown. Understanding how the socioeconomic impacts of rising fuel prices might be distributed across urban areas is a critical issue that is necessary for sustainable urban transportation planning. This study has refined the vulnerability index for petrol expense rises (VIPER) framework previously proposed by Dodson and Sipe (2007) by incorporating travel survey data to better represent households’ car dependence. Through this modified VIPER framework, the authors seek to understand how the socioeconomic impact of rising fuel costs will be distributed across the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The findings of this research reveal a pattern in the distribution of oil vulnerability that depicts a three-ring configuration: expanding outwards from the lowest oil vulnerability in the urban core (1st ring), followed by the highest oil vulnerability in the city’s inner suburbs (2nd ring), and a transition to a lower oil vulnerability in the suburban areas (3rd ring). Such results reveal the need for transportation and land use policy measures that tackle transportation-related social exclusion due to high fuel prices in the future.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.289 · 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.

Study designObservational
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 93rd Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation PoliciesFrench-language works237,207