Towards a meta-analysis and toolkit for port-related socio-economic impacts: a review of socio-economic impact studies conducted for seaports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Port authorities increasingly need to communicate with a variety of external stakeholders in order to maintain and strengthen the societal acceptance of seaport activities. The availability of socio-economic impact studies on port authority and regional development agency websites has often made this information accessible to the public at large. However, the differences in methodologies adopted, in terms of selecting, defining and measuring various types of socio-economic impacts, sometimes lead to misconceptions as well as misleading comparisons across ports within and between regions. In this paper, we suggest guidelines for the design and application of a potential best practice from an interregional perspective (UK, France and Belgium), based on research in the framework of a European Commission co-funded project, ‘IMPACTE’. The paper also aims to develop guidelines for comparing the socio-economic impacts of ports across regional and national borders and discusses the development of a European port economic impact measurement toolkit. We analyse a sample of 33 recent socio-economic impact assessment reports in terms of methodologies adopted and types of impacts measured. The review shows a great diversity among these studies, leading to important differences between the impacts of port activity communicated to stakeholders.
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 | 0.057 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".