MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066046007 · doi:10.3141/2275-12

Former Electrified Commuter Railroads

2012· article· en· W2066046007 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John G. Allen, Herbert S. Levinson

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTransport and Economic Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntownMetropolitan areaDemiseTransport engineeringService (business)Quarter (Canadian coin)Transit (satellite)GeographyEngineeringEconomyPublic transportArchaeologyPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the first third of the 20th century, 16 commuter rail operations in major North American metropolitan areas adopted electric traction. Ten of these electrifications survive. The other six were discontinued between 1929 and 1949, although parts of the alignments of some properties have been returned to regional transit use. With a comparison of the histories of the former electric railroads with those of operations that survived, the reasons for their discontinuance are investigated. Perhaps unexpectedly, the Great Depression does not solely account for the demise of most of these lines. Instead, major geographic barriers precluding direct downtown service and the construction of new highway links appear to have been at least as important. Furthermore, all surviving electrifications addressed practical operating needs. However, no installations undertaken as technological test beds or in response to competing lines have survived.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicTransport and Economic PoliciesFrench-language works237,207