Whose street is it anyway? Regaining lost ground for pedestrians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the 20th century the pedestrian domain has incrementally lost ground to the car. This gradual erosion has manifested itself in reduced space in which to walk, absence of convenient links to desired destinations, dearth of opportunities for detente in tranquil settings, reduced acoustic space, curtailed opportunities for social interaction and limited attention depth. This paper traces the onset of these negative symptoms, describes the planning reaction to them and proposes a new model for street networks that recovers part of the lost domain and reintroduces the characteristics that make walking convenient, healthy and enjoyable. Fanis Grammenos is a Senior Researcher in sustainable community planning at Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. He has covered areas of research such as energy efficiency, passive solar design, user needs in housing, housing affordability, adaptable building design, planning regulations, and sustainable development. Before joining CMHC he was a developer/builder heading a design-built firm which specialized in infill housing and passive solar design. He is a graduate of Environmental Studies and Architecture from Waterloo University.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".