Policies, Guidelines, and Standards for Trails in Alberta Highway Rights-of-way
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2004, Alberta Transportation issued Guidelines for Trails in Highway Right-of-way. Under this policy, Alberta Transportation permitted over 40 trails in the highway right-of-way; however, due to safety concerns with the mixing of high speed highway traffic and low speed trail users, Alberta Transportation did not promote or encourage the practice of placing trails in the highway right-of-way. In 2011, the Government of Alberta released the 'Active Alberta' policy, which focused on the importance of active living and recreation for Albertans. One aspect of active living and recreation is the provision of trail systems for both recreational and utilitarian purposes. The majority of trails will be located in independent alignments through natural areas; however, there is interest from trail proponents and instances where placing a trail in the highway right-of-way may be the most appropriate solution to help create a functional and connected system of trails. In support of the 'Active Alberta' policy, Alberta Transportation recognized the need to review and update their policy on trails in highway right-of-way to reflect the commitment to active living and recreation, while highlighting safety as the most important factor in determining if a trail may be constructed within the highway right-of-way. Therefore, Alberta Transportation launched a study to develop comprehensive policies, guidelines, and standards for trails in highway rights-of-way. This paper summarizes the key policies, procedures, planning considerations, guidelines, and standards developed by Alberta Transportation when considering and developing a trail facility in Alberta highway rights-of-way. For the covering abstract of this conference see ITRD record number 201310RT334E.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".