Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of an investigation into the institutional issues associated with bus rapid transit including an analysis of the most important issues and suggested solution strategies that were made in response to a survey administered to members of the U.S. Bus Rapid Transit Consortium and representatives of several Canadian transit authorities who are also implementing bus rapid transit systems. Primary issues include: integrating multiple inter-jurisdictional priorities, objectives and agendas; finding a political champion who is needed to build coalitions to help promote bus rapid transit; availability of physical space to accommodate bus rapid transit operations; long term funding commitments to bus rapid transit and consistency of policies and preferences due to changes in political and transit authority administrations over time; gaining community support for transit-oriented development; creating and managing perceptions and expectations; responsibility for enforcement on bus lanes and busways; coordinating bus rapid transit implementation that is consistent with local and regional land use plans; and reaching agreement on bus stop/station area enhancements. Recommended solution strategies include strong public outreach and education, good public relations and marketing, fostering comprehensive stakeholder participation, application of a systems approach to quantify the impacts of bus rapid transit and learning from past bus rapid transit deployment experience.
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 | 0.036 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".