MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W571388159

York Region ITS Strategic Plan

2008· article· en· W571388159 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert B. Stewart, L Sima

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware deploymentPlan (archaeology)Strategic planningTraffic congestionBusinessIntelligent transportation systemRegional planningProcess (computing)Transport engineeringTransportation planningEnvironmental planningGeographyUrban planningEngineeringComputer scienceCivil engineeringMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

York Region is one of the largest Regional municipalities in Canada and the fastest growing Region in the Greater Toronto Area. The Region's Transportation Services is responsible for the operation and maintenance of over 900 kilometres of Regional Roads covering an area of nearly 1800 square kilometres, from the City of Toronto to the south, to Lake Simcoe in the north. With rapid growth has come a need to find innovative methods of managing congestion. Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies provide staff with another tool to monitor, manage traffic flow, manage congestion, and provide alternate route information to travelers, as well as save lives, time and money. As a result Region staff initiated a Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Strategic Plan. York Region includes nine local municipalities. In addition, it is bordered by the City of Toronto, Durham Region, and Peel Region. Therefore, it was essential to perform coalition building with the twenty-five agencies who participated in the strategic planning process. Each regional ITS Strategic Plan is different, and this paper will discuss the process, the identified needs, and the specific deployment plan for York Region.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.013

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTransportation Planning and Optimization→French-language works237,207→