Bibliographic record
Abstract
School busing is a controversial issue. Currently, there are few tools available for evaluating the potential risks to child pedestrians and determining where busing should be provided to address safety concerns. Given this situation, the Ottawa Student Transportation Authority (OSTA) commissioned a study to develop a methodology for consistently, fairly and transparently evaluating hazards along the route to school. This paper provides details on the recommended methodology for evaluating where school bus service should be provided - essentially where there are legitimate traffic safety hazards that present a barrier to children walking to school. While originally intended to evaluate eligibility for busing, the warrant system also provides a basis for prioritizing improvements to the walking environment. The methodology is based on a two-part framework which draws on extensive safety research and feedback on similar warrant systems in the US: 1. Absolute warrants are used to identify situations which are deemed to present such a significant risk to students that busing is automatically warranted if no alternative routes exist. 2. Combination warrants account for the cumulative impact of multiple hazards along the route to school. To apply the combination warrant, hazard are assigned; where the two greatest hazards have a combined score of 100 points or greater, busing is considered to be warranted. The evaluation methodology provides a quantifiable, defensible and transparent system for evaluating child pedestrian safety to inform decision making and encourage active modes of transportation amongst students. For the covering abstract of this conference see ITRD record number 201310RT334E.
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 | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.016 |
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".