MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044575528 · doi:10.1002/atr.5670340106

New waves in transportation in North‐Eastern Europe

2000· article· en· W2044575528 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Veli Himanen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCross-Border Cooperation and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuropean unionBaltic seaTransport systemGeographyTransport infrastructureRoad transportEuropean commissionEnvironmental protectionEconomyEnvironmental planningRegional scienceBusinessInternational tradeTransport engineeringEngineeringOceanographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract North‐Eastern Europe is a peripheral area around the Baltic Sea. In some parts i.e. Scandinavia high living standards including developed transport systems exist when at the same time rapid changes in the way of living in other parts ‐ Poland, the Baltic Countries and Russia ‐ are ongoing. Transport policies in the European Union are caught between demands for improved mobility and the concern on the environmental protection. In the former socialist countries the environmental issues are subdued by the demands for efficient transport. A fixed road and rail connection between Denmark and Sweden will change the transport geography of the western part of the area. Also the integration of the Baltic States and Poland to the Union will inside a few years change the economic and by that way also transport structure. After a short presentation of the geography and history the current European transport landscape will be described and current transport policies reviewed. Then some topics on the major changes during the last decennia as well as future studies will be presented. The paper draws heavily from the research projects ‐ SAMI, START and STEMM ‐ financed by the European Commission DGVII.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicCross-Border Cooperation and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207