MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096826862 · doi:10.5430/ijba.v6n5p22

The Formation of Shipping Conference and Rise of Shipping Alliance

2015· article· en· W2096826862 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mariner Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business Administration · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Ports and Logistics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllianceBusinessOperations researchComputer scienceHistoryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to encourage competition in international shipping and growth of U.S. exports, the Senate and House of Representatives of the U.S.A. in Congress assembled in 1988. In the assembly, the Shipping Act of 1984 was amended and instead, the OSRA (Ocean Shipping Reform Act) of 1998 which modernizes and deregulates the international ocean shipping business was enacted. The biggest change is shippers are allowed to sign the Service Contract (S/C) directly with individual carrier (but not the alliance). After the implementation of OSRA of 1998, there has been drastic increase in the number of S/Cs, in addition, the volume of cargo moving under service contracts has been ever increased. For this, the existence of shipping conference became meaningless and then totally appear and out of the market. OSRA of 1998 are regarded as the catalyst contributing to the restructuring of the liner shipping industry. It has led to the formation of shipping alliance in terms of vessel-sharing and space charters. The activities of shipping alliances between liner carriers have been increasing intensively since the last two decades, satiating with a whole new requirement of shippers stemmed from the industrial globalization.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business AdministrationSame topicMaritime Ports and LogisticsFrench-language works237,207