Equity in Transportation Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community groups have often identified transportation equity and accessibility as a critical issue, yet the opacity and technical requirements of the transportation planning process can make it difficult to engage on these issues. This research assessed the potential for building community-based capacity as a way to advance equity-focused transportation planning and advocacy. Through a partnership with the Healthy Transportation Coalition, an Ottawa-based advocacy coalition, this community-based participatory research was co-led by a Community Leader Steering Group, representing equity-deserving groups. Over the course of the project, we (1) developed training workshops on transportation equity and metrics; (2) undertook a public survey of transportation equity goals and values, with over 500 responses; and (3) conducted focus groups with elected officials and professional staff to better understand the barriers to implementing equitable processes. The main findings underscored disconnects between academic, professional and community-based understandings of equity; a lack of meaningful engagement with equity-deserving groups; and misalignments between community needs and funding priorities. The report includes best practices for assessing transportation equity, engaging with equity-deserving communities, and developing equitable 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 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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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.
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".