RETHINKING LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PLANNING IN HAMILTON, ONTARIO: A COMPARATIVE REVIEW AND CRITICAL ASSESSMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Province of Ontario is in the midst of an unprecedented expansion of light rail transit (LRT). But what factors are behind the determination to build LRT? The case of light rail in Hamilton offers important insights into the tangible and intangible motivations and justifications that inform the light rail transit planning process. The decision to construct LRT is based on the tangible goals of city-building and increasing economic development, revitalization, land use change, and transit ridership. The planning process is also based on the intangible symbolic goals of city branding, differentiation, and image-led planning as a means of altering perceptions and increasing competitiveness. However, an extensive review of the literature demonstrates that a series of prerequisites that must be in place if an investment in light rail is to achieve these goals. Applying this knowledge to the case of Hamilton reveals a project that faces significant challenges to inducing land use change and altering perceptions. The research presents several lessons relevant to planners and policymakers involved in the light rail transit planning process.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".