General Manager, Transportation Services Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this report is to advise City Council on the outcome of negotiations with Public Bike System Company (PBSC), as directed by Council, to provide, install, operate and maintain a public bicycle program for Toronto. City Council, at its meeting on August 5 and 6, 2009, authorized staff to negotiate an agreement with PBSC to implement and operate a Toronto public bicycle program “at no cost to the City. ” During negotiations with PBSC, it became clear that the City would need to share the financial risk with PBSC to ensure the viability of the project. City staff and PBSC have negotiated the draft terms of an agreement whereby PBSC would enter into a 10-year agreement with the City to be launched May 1, 2011. When the program is deployed, Torontonians and visitors would have access to 1,000 bicycles via 80 fully automated and conveniently located “bicycle parking stations ” in the downtown area during the first year of operation with the potential to expand the system to other areas in the future. PBSC would be responsible for the $4.8 million capital investment to manufacture and install the public bicycle infrastructure and for the operation of the program, and the estimated $1.3 million average annual operating cost. In return, the City would provide a loan guarantee to assist PBSC in securing favourable financing. The City would be responsible for the cost of replacing the bicycles and stations due to vandalism and theft in excess of a six percent threshold. The proposed agreement between the City and PBSC provides Toronto with a significant program which aligns well with the City's sustainable transportation and environmental objectives, with minimal cost or financial risk. The draft terms of agreement are very favourable to the City in comparison to other cities around the world with similar public bicycle programs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.341 | 0.154 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".