MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994453976 · doi:10.1177/0891242404269500

“We’d Have to Sink the Ships”: Impact Studies and the 2002 West Coast Port Lockout

2004· article· en· W1994453976 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

VenueEconomic Development Quarterly · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Ports and Logistics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPort (circuit theory)Economic impact analysisEconomicsWest coastBusinessNatural resource economicsMicroeconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the West Coast port lockout in fall 2002, a widely quoted estimate claimed that a 10-day shutdown of port facilities would cost the U.S. economy $1.94 billion a day. This article argues that the estimated economic losses were vastly over inflated, and the episode provides an opportunity to reflect on the use of economic impact studies to study short-term disruptions of infrastructure services. Port impact studies are deficient in this task because they do not adequately address the possibilities for substitution, even in the short run. In part, this is because port impact studies are poorly designed to deal with the changing nature of the relationship between seaport operations and regional economic development. Impact studies assume a continuous monotonic relationship between cargo throughput and economic measures. This ignores the fact that port-using firms have differential abilities to adjust to disruptions and that their adjustment behavior creates both losers and winners.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.218 · 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