MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038102429 · doi:10.1080/02722011.2013.858759

Defining the Soft Infrastructure of Border Crossings: A Case Study at the Canada–US Border

2013· article· en· W2038102429 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Donna F. Davis, Wesley Friske

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Review of Canadian Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsExploratory researchCritical infrastructureTrade facilitationBusinessGrounded theoryRegional scienceQualitative researchGeographyInternational tradeComputer securityComputer scienceTrade barrierSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While improving the “hard” resources of the physical infrastructure is important to facilitating cross-border trade, studies of global supply chain logistics performance suggest that expanding the focus to include “soft” infrastructure resources will be critical for future gains. Border management is increasingly important to North American trade facilitation, yet little is known about what constitutes the soft infrastructure of border crossings or how to design and manage this infrastructure for improved performance. Hence, this study uses an exploratory research design to examine the nature and dimensions of the soft infrastructure of border crossings. The research relies on a grounded-theory analysis of primary data collected in an exploratory case study of two border crossings between Alberta, Canada, and Montana, US.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0250.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Review of Canadian StudiesSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207