Urban logistics solutions and financing mechanisms : a scenario assessment analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
T \nhis paper presents the main issues related \nto the \nfinancing \nof urban logistics solutions \n, m \nore precise \nly \nto \nthe contribution of economic analysis \non strategic decision support related for urban logistics \nfinancing \n, focusing on cost benefit analysis. First \nwe present the main \nfunding strategies in \nurban \neconomics, mainly in \nthe field of urban logistics \n. \nSecond we address \nthe contribution of cost benefit \nanalysis by recalling the main methodology and \nadapting \nit to urban logistics. \nThird we apply the method \nto the \nexample of deploying a delivery spac \ne booking network, \nand illustrate the application via a set of \nthree examples containing different situations and scenarios, which \nare presented \n, assessed and discussed \n. \nFrom the different simulations, it is observed that the way the system is financed has \nstrong impacts on \nboth its individual cost \n(for potential users) and its attractiveness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it