MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7010170674

Green and active transportation planning with Pinawa, Manitoba

2024· dissertation· en· W7010170674 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSignageDowntownTourismRentingTransportation planningPublic transportUrban planningRecreationSustainable transport
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pinawa is recognized as an award-winning, active town in Manitoba with many breathtaking nature experiences. However, further green and active transportation (AT) opportunities could improve community living and tourism in the town. A multi-method approach was employed for this strategic analysis, incorporating semi-structured interviews, site observation, mapping connectivity, and comparative case studies. The community's top priorities included enhancing mobility in Pinawa. This involved expanding the trail system into the town's downtown area, improving signage for wayfinding, enhancing public transportation, creating crosswalks, adding bike lanes, installing new placemakers, and increasing options for bike rentals to facilitate AT in Pinawa. Maps reveal how key Pinawa attractions are disconnected but can be linked through walking trails, sidewalks, and bike lanes. This study provides planners, policymakers, and environmental advocates with green infrastructure solutions for health and economic vitality. This research contributes to understanding AT's role in rural communities, providing practical recommendations to prioritize AT in infrastructure planning, funding, and policies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.242
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)→Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→