Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study provides policies and guidelines to assist municipalities in integrating goods movement considerations into land use planning. Specifically it shows how public officials can improve freight mobility to make business more competitive and improve the overall economic health of their municipalities and the broader southern Ontario region centered on Toronto. The study addresses freight movement planning and design issues at three levels: the transportation network or system level; the facilities level (focusing on both on-street and off-street loading/unloading and maneuvering requirements) and the operational level (dealing with the design and operation of roadway facilities). The study report thus presents a comprehensive set of policies and guidelines for use by municipal urban planners, and transportation planners and engineers. The policies and guidelines are related to standard municipal planning processes including: Official Plan reviews and preparation of amendments; conduct of transportation master plans, corridor and sub-area studies; capital planning for infrastructure; development and site plan reviews; and facility design. To ensure freight movement considerations receive more attention, the study calls for the preparation of “freight audits” by municipalities and improved coordination among neighboring municipalities (eg. in the establishment of cross-boundary truck routes) and between public and private sector interests through the establishment of both regional and local freight stakeholder groups. While the study is multi-modal in scope, its emphasis on truck-related issues is a reflection of the predominant use of that mode, its more direct relationship to land use planning and the need to update current roadway standards and planning procedures.
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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.012 |
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".