MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W650493706

LONDON IS BURNING! ...AND OTHER NON-EVENTS IN THE AFTERMATH OF CONGESTION CHARGING

2003· article· en· W650493706 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Ungemah

Bibliographic record

VenueTDM Review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChampionTraffic congestionCongestion pricingSingapore Area Licensing SchemeRevenueRoad pricingTransport engineeringPlan (archaeology)Demand managementBusinessFinanceEngineeringEconomicsHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2000, the Mayor of London decided to champion the concept of charging vehicles for access into the most congested section of Central London. The proposed Road Charging Options For London Plan predicted that charging vehicles for access would reduce traffic by around 12% from current levels. The principle behind the program is relevant to Transportation Demand Management, it simultaneously balances the supply and demand for London's roadway system through pricing and generates new revenues to be applied towards improving the area's alternative modes of travel. On Monday, 17 February 2003, the Congestion Charging program went into effect. This article provides background history and results of the program, and comparisons and lessons learned for United States and Canada as well..

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTDM ReviewSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207