MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974724432 · doi:10.3328/tl.2010.02.04.261-271

Canada's Port of Prince Rupert as a successful national gateway strategy

2010· article· en· W1974724432 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kelly Pitera, Anne Goodchild, Susan A. Albrecht

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Letters · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Ports and Logistics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGateway (web page)Port (circuit theory)TelecommunicationsPort authorityGeographyEngineeringComputer scienceWorld Wide WebTerminal (telecommunication)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we examine the Port of Prince Rupert as a case study of the Canadian Gateway strategy. We consider the effect of the Gateway strategy on the development of a container terminal at the Port of Prince Rupert, and Prince Rupert's effect on discretionary cargo at west coast ports in North America. Canada's Asia-Pacific Gateway Initiative was developed specifically to increase trade between Canada and the Asia-Pacific region. The initiative, coupled with a national freight transportation policy framework, commits investments to a long term plan for infrastructure. Through this integrative policy and public-private collaboration, the container terminal at the Port of Prince Rupert has grown and a new route for Asia-North America trade has developed. The port presents a novel concept for North American ports by locating outside of an existing urban center, and focusing on through, rather than local, traffic. However, through a logistical analysis of market sizes and likely importers, we demonstrate that the new container terminal at Prince Rupert will not likely cause a dramatic shift in cargo flows on the West Coast.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation LettersSame topicMaritime Ports and LogisticsFrench-language works237,207