MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1866539551 · doi:10.4000/belgeo.13474

Hierarchical network structure as seen in container shipping liner services in the Caribbean Basin

2004· article· en· W1866539551 on OpenAlex

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

VenueBELGEO · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Ports and Logistics
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContainer (type theory)Network structureStructural basinService (business)Redundancy (engineering)BusinessComplex networkOrder (exchange)Computer scienceGeographyTelecommunicationsEngineeringGeologyDistributed computingWorld Wide WebMarketingFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper concerns the network structure of container shipping services in the Caribbean Basin. It investigates Robinson’s (1998) concept of hierarchical networks in container shipping in which the higher the order of the network the fewer the ports and the fewer the connections among those ports. Three networks are defined based on the geographical reach of the carriers’ services: Intra-Basin, Americas’ region, and Inter-Oceanic. All three networks are quite similar, although there are differences in the number of ports served and the number of services and linkages among the ports of each net. Each net has a high degree of redundancy. Almost 40 per cent of the 88 ports in the basin belong to all three nets. It is not true that the higher the order the network, where order is defined by the geographical scale of service, the fewer ports and the fewer linkages. Defining hierarchical structure is elusive. Even the hub and spoke service structure is not immediately obvious.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.200 · 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