MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W608783703

Vancouver's Transient Parking Supply and Demand

2009· article· en· W608783703 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
F Navin, P Joyce

Bibliographic record

Venue2009 ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION OF THE TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF CANADA - TRANSPORTATION IN A CLIMATE OF CHANGE · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Parking Systems Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntownSupply and demandTransient (computer programming)BusinessCorporationParking lotTransport engineeringService (business)MarketingFinanceComputer scienceEconomicsEngineeringGeographyCivil engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

EasyPark is the off-street parking operator for the City of Vancouver. The corporation reports to the city but also represents the parking interests of the downtown business community. The directors of EasyPark commissioned three studies of transient parking. The first report traces parking development in Downtown Vancouver from the 1960s. The second study by Bunt & Associates measured the current supply and demand for transient parking and forecasted the 2031 demand. The Mustel Group Market Research did a market survey of transient parking attitudes. The question of the definition of transient parking, the demand of such parking and its supply were the focus of the studies. Forecasting the required supply proved to be an interesting task given the need to comply with the city's sustainable parking policies and the opinions of the downtown business community. This paper will explain the growth of parking in Vancouver over the last half century and how that is divided into various uses. The main discussion will deal with the question of estimating the demand for transient parking and how much should be supplied to provide some acceptable level of service for both parking customers and downtown business.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.210 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2009 ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION OF THE TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF CANADA - TRANSPORTATION IN A CLIMATE OF CHANGESame topicSmart Parking Systems ResearchFrench-language works237,207