MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Port Pricing. Considerations on Economic Principles and Marginal Costs

2003· article· en· W144559769 on OpenAlex
Hilde Meersman, Eddy Van de Voorde, T. Vanelslander

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean journal of transport and infrastructure research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Ports and Logistics
Canadian institutionsTransport Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarginal costPort (circuit theory)Monopolistic competitionEconomicsSubsidyCompetition (biology)MicroeconomicsIndustrial organizationPublic economicsBusinessMonopolyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pricing by ports and operators within ports is considered quite a complex and untransparant matter, and as such it is sometimes perceived as archaic. This often results in debates about subsidies, captive markets and the dredging and deepening of maritime access routes, raising questions concerning potential distortion of competition and/or abuse of monopolistic power. This paper starts from the most important scientific literature on port pricing (and port competition), and adds new empirical results while calculating the marginal cost of a port call. A distinction is made between four elements of marginal costs in port operations, being costs for provision of infrastructure, costs associated with the use of the transport mode, costs for supplying port services, and external costs. This material may constitute the basis for a meaningful debate on the implementation of a pricing approach that is grounded on the marginal cost principle.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.229 · 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