Objectives of Private Bus Operators in Evaluating Transit Investments in Developing Countries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses appropriate evaluation techniques for assessing transit proposals in developing countries. With the shift of ownership models in past decades from fully public to fully private and eventually to consolidated franchising models, successful transit projects require the analysis of several indirect costs associated with changing ownership. These indirect costs include (a) the potential loss of personal income for local bus operators if the new investment precludes their continued operation, (b) negative personal impacts on self-worth and changing business dynamics, and (c) long-term impacts on the ability of the government to implement future projects as a result of obstacles that may result from the first two costs. In the proposed methodology these costs are explicitly considered in the evaluation process. The way that various ownership models in current use influence—either positively or negatively—such indirect costs is assessed. The paper concludes that full involvement of local bus operators typically minimizes these indirect costs but may be difficult to achieve, depending on the number and characteristics of the operators in the corridor for which the development is proposed. The paper presents a detailed assessment of the conditions under which full involvement is possible and suggests alternative techniques to advance the idea of local operator involvement.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it