Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the time when the Panama Canal was handed over to Panama, most people believed that the Canal was of little material worth to the United States.� However, what was the value of this canal to the United States in the 1920s?� We estimate the social savings generated by the Panama Canal for the United States in 1924 in order to assess the contribution it made to the social welfare of the United States.� We estimate the direct social savings that resulted from lower shipping costs for both international and coastwise trade.� Additionally, we estimate the benefits from two sources of indirect social savings.� The first was generated as a result of the expansion of the feasible market area, due to reduced transport costs.� The second source of indirect social savings is what we refer to as the pro-competitive effect of the competition between the water shipping via the Panama Canal and shipping via the transcontinental railroad.� We argue that this competition resulted in lower freight rates for all railroad traffic due to the way in which the Interstate Commerce Commission regulated railroad freight rates.� Estimates of total social saving range from 0.58 percent of GNP to 1.97 percent of GNP in 1924.� Even the lower estimate of social saving is a value that is one quarter larger than the total cost of acquiring the land and constructing the Panama Canal.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".