MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W612547656

Cycling safety in Australia

2014· article· en· W612547656 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tony Arnold

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyclingProject commissioningTransport engineeringOccupational safety and healthPoison controlPublishingBusinessInjury preventionSuicide preventionEngineeringHuman factors and ergonomicsEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceGeographyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The humble bicycle is making a comeback around the world; with governments recognising the many benefits that encouraging transport cycling has for individuals and society. Many of these benefits are well-recognised such as improved health, air quality and congestion. Many are less well-recognised such as providing socially-equitable access to transport and improving road safety for vulnerable road users. In an effort to saturate cities with bicycles and mainstream transport cycling, hundreds of major cities across the globe have launched bike-share schemes including New York, London, Paris, Barcelona, Montreal, Mexico City, Stockholm, Milan, Helsinki, Lyon and Australia's Melbourne and Brisbane. This worldwide trend has little to do with spandex-clad bodies engaging in sports cycling and more to do with ordinary people just getting from A to B. Governments are looking to mainstream cycling and are using imagery that is very different to the hardened, helmeted, sweaty bodies of past cycling promotion efforts. Today's bicyclists are everyday people in everyday clothes making everyday trips.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicTraffic and Road Safety→French-language works237,207→