MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7097888853

THE GPI TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNTS: SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION IN HALIFAX REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY Prepared by:

2011· article· en· W7097888853 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityTransportation planningSustainable transportNova scotiaWork (physics)PopulationTransportation infrastructure
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In June 2006, Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) approved its first Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS), as an amalgamated municipality. The Municipal Planning Strategy sets the general framework for planning decisions over the next 20 years. The major objectives of this initiative are to manage a moderate level of population growth, minimize the environmental impact of that growth, and use it as a catalyst to make HRM more sustainable in all of its activities. Due to the dispersed nature of HRM and the diverse mix of its urban, suburban, and rural areas, the links between communities become a key focal point for sustainability measures. Consequently, transportation issues have become central to many of HRM’s current planning decisions and are a key component of the MPS. The GPI Transportation Accounts: Sustainable Transportation in Halifax Regional Municipality are intended to aid HRM’s transportation planning process. The transportation indicators and full cost accounting of passenger transportation in HRM outlined in this report can provide HRM planners with a useful model both for assessing the current transportation system and for monitoring its progress towards greater sustainability as the MPS is implemented. Please see GPIAtlantic’s Transportation Accounts: Sustainable Transportation in Nova Scotia for an indepth

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→