Shared Corridors, Strange Bedfellows: Understanding the Interface Between Freight and Passenger Rail
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to clarify issues regarding shared rail corridors from a public policy perspective. It presents an overview of the relationships between the main stakeholders operating trains on North America’s rail networks: the railway companies that own the rail infrastructure and use it to provide freight services to shippers, and the passenger service operators—which are primarily public agencies that pay railway companies for track access and other services required to operate commuter and intercity passenger trains. The issues at stake are of concern to the policy and business community alike, because congestion on railway lines affects commuter rail, intercity passenger trains, and long-distance freight trains. In addition to the obvious economic costs of delays or less-reliable transit times in passenger and freight rail, respectively, adverse environmental and social impacts (e.g., higher accident rates on roadways) arise if either freight or passenger traffic shifts from rail to roadways. An earlier version of this paper was published by the Conference Board of Canada in September 2010.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".