MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029895334 · doi:10.3141/1790-03

E-Business Challenges for Intermodal Freight: Some International Comparisons

2002· article· en· W2029895334 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nariida Smith, Garland Chow, Luís Ferreira

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban and Freight Transport Logistics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraffic managementTransport engineeringViewpointsBusinessSupply chainTransportation infrastructureGovernment (linguistics)Relevance (law)Rail freight transportIndustrial organizationEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Separate Canadian and Australian government-sponsored studies, both reporting in mid-2001, have investigated expected impacts of rapid growth in e-business on transportation infrastructure and services. The different viewpoints of these two studies allow consideration of implications for freight transportation in general and intermodal freight in particular. The findings reported, relating to supply chain changes, special challenges for rail- and sea-freight carriers, and changes in requirements for freight warehousing and interchange, have international relevance, which leads to suggested policy responses. The importance of e-business in affecting freight transportation should not be underestimated. Transportation experts interviewed in the Australian study unanimously considered this the issue of most consequence for transportation over the next 5 to 10 years. Both studies point to freight transportation having significant potential to aid economic growth from e-business and conversely to a lack of appropriate infrastructure to accommodate that growth.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.224
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.122 · 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

Citations6
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicUrban and Freight Transport LogisticsFrench-language works237,207