MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1525667850

The U.S. & Canada's Top Rail Projects for 2008

2008· article· en· W1525667850 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alex Roman

Bibliographic record

VenueMetrologia · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTransport and Economic Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransit (satellite)Rail transitTransport engineeringBusinessTransit systemAgricultural economicsPublic transportEngineeringEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The annul survey of rail projects by METRO magazine puts New Jersey Transit at the top of the funding list for U.S. and Canadian rail projects for 2009. It has $14.6 billion worth of projects. The total funding for the top 10 is $70 billion, with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds providing a large increase. New Jersey Transit’s showing displaces the perennial number one occupant, New York City Transit. This year it occupies the number two spot, with a little over $8.1 billion. Other notable changes in the rankings include Seattle’s Sound Transit, which is now fourth in spending, up from 8th. Denver’s Regional Transportation District (RTD) and the San Francisco Municipal Railway are three and five, respectively. New Jersey Transit is receiving $424 million under the ARRA. One of its largest undertakings is the Mass Transit Tunnel (MTT) project, which will produce two new trans-Hudson commuter rail tunnels and an expanded Penn Station. Across the survey, funding is up nearly $20 billion from 2008 and is the largest since 2004. The railcar fleet mix continues to be dominated by heavy rail, at 59 percent, and it appears that they will remain the vehicle of choice in the future. The MTA’s New York City Transit has the largest rail fleet, with 6,774 railcars, followed by Amtrak, with 1,545.

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 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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetrologiaSame topicTransport and Economic PoliciesFrench-language works237,207