MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W633399027

Creating a Complete Street Cross Section for Calgary's Divided Arterial

2013· article· en· W633399027 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rj Chapman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation Safety and Impact Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedestrianTransport engineeringContext (archaeology)Plan (archaeology)Land useWork (physics)Land-use planningAccommodationUrban planningEnvironmental planningBusinessSustainabilityGeographyEngineeringCivil engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2009, the City of Calgary adopted a Municipal Development Plan (MDP) and Calgary Transportation Plan (CTP) to guide future growth within the City of Calgary. These plans provide the land use and transportation policy framework to support a long-term vision for sustainable growth in the city. One of the stated objectives of the CTP was the development of new Complete Streets guidelines to ensure that Calgary's roadways support the proposed shift from today's auto-oriented network to a system which balances the needs of private vehicles with those of other, more sustainable, users of the road network. This would work in combination with other policies around land-use planning and growth management to effect a change in the way people travel within the city. In order to achieve this objective, the City's then current standards for roads would need significant review and adjustment, with changes expected to road cross sections and rights-of-way, as well as standards for access management, bicycle accommodation, pedestrian facilities, transit accommodation, urban forestry, and green infrastructure, and a revisiting of the appropriate land use context for various road types. For the covering abstract of this conference see ITRD record 201309RT334E.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.226 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTransportation Safety and Impact AnalysisFrench-language works237,207