The Mobility-Immobility Nexus and Urban Sprawl: The Montreal Case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All modern cities are battling with urban sprawl and its effects. Montreal is no exception. This paper takes stock of the situation that prevails in Montreal both in terms of the evolution of the mobility conditions, and in terms of the spatial evolution of the urban fabric. Classical indicators are used to describe the recent past and the present situation. As for the future, it is dealt with by means of the topodynamic approach, which is original and based on the Weberian location theory. That leads to reconsidering the traditional theory of the urban form. Finally, in accordance with the theoretical reflections, a conclusion is put forward by which a factor that is likely to have a determining effect on the evolution of urban sprawl remains the regulation through urban toll of the price of mobility inside of the urban territory. Toutes les villes modernes sont aux prises avec les défis posés par l’étalement urbain. Montréal ne fait pas exception. Nous faisons ici le point sur la situation montréalaise en mettant côte à côte certains faits touchant à l’évolution des conditions de la mobilité et à celle du secteur immobilier dans l’espace. Le passé récent et le présent sont décrits à l’aide d’indicateurs classiques. Des projections de l’évolution prévisible du tissu urbain montréalais sont présentées qui ont été générées à l’aide de l’approche topodynamique, une approche originale basée sur la théorie wébérienne de la localisation. Le lien entre les résultats obtenus et la théorie de la forme urbaine fait l’objet de remises en question. Enfin, une piste est proposée suivant laquelle il pourrait être possible d’infléchir les tendances à l’étalement urbain par la régulation, au moyen du péage urbain, du prix de la mobilité à l’intérieur du territoire urbanisé.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".