MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064081965 · doi:10.1243/0954409011531486

An analysis of the development of the tramway/light rail concept in the British Isles

2001· article· en· W2064081965 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
I. A. Souter

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part F Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTransport and Economic Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatutory lawLegislationRevenueLight railLight rail transitService (business)Government (linguistics)Quarter (Canadian coin)BusinessPopulationTransport engineeringPublic transportFinanceEngineeringPolitical scienceGeographyMarketingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the first quarter of the twentieth century the electric tramcar was the dominant mode of local transport in the urban areas of this country. Thereafter, this position was ceded such that by the 1960s tramways had practically disappeared, a rate well in advance of experience elsewhere. Interest in light rail reappeared in the 1970s and six new systems are now in service. The first stage of tramway decline was brought about by the continual loss of revenue to service a variety of statutory and planning obligations imposed on operators. The second stage came in the 1920s when financially weakened operators had to renew assets in a climate of changing transport demands and economic conditions. Increasingly, as roads and road vehicle technology improved and population spread, the cost-effective option was to convert to motorbus or trolleybus. The transfer of learning from first generation tramways has been minimal and conditions for light rail development remain difficult although the government is becoming more interested. The easing of legislation governing establishment and operation of light rail services is essential for future expansion, and will be best achieved by the industry finding a voice to speak with authority on its behalf.

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)0.001
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 score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.181 · 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part F Journal of Rail and Rapid TransitSame topicTransport and Economic PoliciesFrench-language works237,207