MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W624941205

Burnaby Mountain Gondola Transit Project - Success in Integrating Sustainable Transportation and Land Use

2011· article· en· W624941205 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ian Fisher, R Rollin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderground infrastructure and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransport engineeringTransit (satellite)Bus rapid transitCapital costService (business)TRIPS architectureEngineeringChristian ministryPublic transportEnvironmental scienceBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TransLink, with the support of the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and P3 Canada, is reviewing the potential for a high-capacity gondola connecting Burnaby Mountain to the nearest SkyTrain rapid transit station. The mountain accounts for 25,000 daily transit passenger trips and is home to the main campus of Simon Fraser University, with 18,200 students, growing to 25,000 in future, and the UniverCity sustainable community, with residents increasing from 3,000 to 10,000. While the mountain is only 2.7 kilometres from the nearest SkyTrain station, it is almost 300 metres higher in elevation. Approximately 45 diesel buses arrive on the mountain in the peak hour but pass-ups are common and the service is often disrupted in winter weather. An initial study indicated that a high-capacity gondola could replace most of the bus service, with bus cost savings covering the gondola operating cost and a portion of capital. Additionally, a gondola has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase reliability, and cut travel times by one-third, attracting more riders to transit. The costs and benefits, and potential delivery models, are being reviewed in a Business Case completed in summer 2011. For the covering abstract on this conference see record control number 201111RT334E.

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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUnderground infrastructure and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207