The Caribbean basin: adjusting to global trends in containerization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Positioned strategically between major east–west and north–south trading routes, the Caribbean basin has become a locus of new service configurations in container shipping. Over the last decade global shipping lines have been restructuring their service networks in the region in order to integrate local services with the newly rationalized intercontinental connections. By comparing service network structures in 1994 and 2002 at three levels of organization—local, regional and global—we are able to show that although Caribbean ports are well connected to the global system, and while the total number of services has declined between the two years, those mounted by members of global alliances have increased. Moreover, services of the global carriers at the local and regional levels are on the increase. As much as the alliances are reshaping Caribbean networks, the smaller carriers are still playing a role, but at a reduced spatial scale. Parallel with the modifications to network configurations are the changes in the port system. Essentially, traffic of the most important ports in the north and western part of the basin has grown at slower rates than the ports in the south and east. These traffic changes are only partly related to network changes. It is the growth of transshipments that is driving the most important developments in port traffic and bringing to the forefront the development of hub ports. The most important are: Colon, Panama (southwest), Freeport, Bahamas (north), Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago (southeast), Kingston, Jamaica and Rio Haina, Dominican Republic (middle), and Cartagena, Colombia and Puerto Cabello, Venezuela (south).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".