The real cost of the automobile: a report on recent research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides a comprehensive survey of the views of a number of experts on the real costs of the au-tomobile. The costs of the automobile are extensively categorized, and the most significant of these catego-ries are analyzed and quantified. The article also in-cludes a case study on the costs of the auto industry in Ontario, as well as an extensive bibliography. The automobile carries us to our birth, conveys us to the grave, transports us on the errands of mortality, and stands parked at the center of our energy problem: The freedom of mobility it grants costs us about 30 percent of all the petro-leum we burn. It has been, and still is, a costly status symbol. —D. Jeffery (1981, p. 24) There have been many attempts to identify and quantify the true costs of the automobile. The purpose of this article is to present and consolidate the most recent findings of researchers and commentators in this area. It provides a comprehensive list of categories for the true costing of the automobile and proceeds to present the views of numerous experts on some of the most significant of these categories. It concludes with a summary of a recent case study on the costs of the automobile in the province of Ontario, Canada. An extensive bibliography has been appended. Categories for the True Costing of Automobiles In the early 1990s, Mark Delucchi made an exhaus-tive study of the real costs of motor vehicles. The cate-gories outlined in this article are largely taken from his
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it