N. Smith Lea 4948 Environments 28(2) Colliding Modes of Transportation: Issues of Inequity and Unsustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decisions about how we transport ourselves are considered a matter of per-sonal choice and in North America, the majority choose the private automo-bile. Yet, transportation infrastructure is a matter of public policy and greatly affects individual choice. After approximately 90 years of mass-production, the role of the car in the destruction of cities has been well established, as has the ecological unsustainability of its present (over)use. More recently, sociologists have identified that the automobile increases and entrenches social inequities. Consequently, this raises questions about the democratic and liberalizing quali-ties historically associated with the car. This paper examines the connections between social inequity and ecologically unsustainable auto-centered plan-ning in Toronto, Ontario, a city in the process of re-inventing itself. Transporta-tion alternatives that reduce social inequity and ecological unsustainability are also considered. On considère généralement que les moyens de transport que nous utilisons font lobjet dun choix personnel. En Amérique du Nord, la majorité des gens « choisissent » lautomobile. Toutefois, en matière de transport, linfrastructure est affaire de politique publique et elle oriente grandement les choix individuels. Après environ 90 ans de production de masse, il a été clairement démontré que les automobiles jouent un rôle destructeur des villes, tout comme la non-durabilité écologique de son utilisation (ou sa surutilisation). Plus récemment, des sociologues ont établi que lautomobile augmentait et ancrait les inégalités sociales, ce qui soulève le problème de lattribution des qualités démocratiques et libératrices qui y ont longtemps été associées. Dans cet article, lauteure examine les liens entre les inégalités sociales et la planification urbaine non-durable écologiquement et centrée sur les automobiles qui prévaut à Toronto (Ontario), une ville en restructuration. Des solutions de rechange qui réduiraient les inégalités sociales et assureraient la durabilité sont aussi examinées.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.303 | 0.057 |
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".