Transit-Induced Neighborhood-Level Change in Medellin, and its Insights for Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For much of recent history, transfers of knowledge between cities largely originated in those of the Global North, which were seen as the only cities whose innovations and policies worthy of imitation. This colonial (and in many ways neo-colonial) line of thought was a defining part of urban planning ideals for decades, but in recent years the cities of the Global South have begun to gain increased traction. Medellin, Colombia sits as a prime example of this phenomenon, as its innovative approach to participatory planning and series of social urbanism initiatives (known as Integrated Urban Projects, or IUPs) has gained it international recognition in urban planning circles. A key aspect of Medellin’s urban upgrading has been the creation of an aerial cable car system, specifically designed to connect some of the city’s most disadvantaged districts. It is within this context that this Major Paper is situated, as it aims to connect Medellin’s experience of improved connectivity and placemaking via transit planning to potential lessons for new transit infrastructure in Toronto. Through the use of Metrocable Line K as a case study, this Major Paper will examine the ways that the system has impacted the neighborhoods along its route, focusing on how Line K has affected connectivity and mobility, community engagement and placemaking. The last sections of the paper will focus on the ways that insights gained from studying Line K can be used in the context of new transit infrastructure in Toronto. Taking inspiration from Medellin offers the opportunity to reimagine the relationship between transit and public spaces in the city, through the creation of new initiatives surrounding public spaces, partnerships with other city agencies, and policies designed to lessen or eliminate 3 inequalities in and amongst the city’s neighborhoods.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".