MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1943925430 · doi:10.1111/risa.12063

Transport Mode Selection for Toxic Gases: Rail or Road?

2013· article· en· W1943925430 on OpenAlexafffund
Morteza Bagheri, Manish Verma, Vedat Verter

Bibliographic record

VenueRisk Analysis · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcMaster University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHazardous wasteTruckTransport engineeringMode (computer interface)Mode of transportDangerous goodsSelection (genetic algorithm)Risk assessmentRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringComputer scienceBusinessPublic transportComputer securityWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A significant majority of hazardous materials (hazmat) shipments are moved via the highway and railroad networks, wherein the latter mode is generally preferred for long distances. Although the characteristics of highway transportation make trucks the most dominant surface transportation mode, should it be preferred for hazmat whose accidental release can cause catastrophic consequences? We answer this question by first developing a novel and comprehensive assessment methodology-which incorporates the sequence of events leading to hazmat release from the derailed railcars and the resulting consequence-to measure rail transport risk, and second making use of the proposed assessment methodology to analyze hazmat transport risk resulting from meeting the demand for chlorine and ammonia in six distinct corridors in North America. We demonstrate that rail transport will reduce risk, irrespective of the risk measure and the transport corridor, and that every attempt must be made to use railroads to transport these shipments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations59
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRisk AnalysisSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207