MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097397463 · doi:10.1177/1087724x04268697

Rail Infrastructure Management Policy

2004· article· en· W2097397463 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Works Management & Policy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTransport and Economic Policies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of TorontoMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbandonment (legal)Counterfactual thinkingTrack (disk drive)Process (computing)LiberalizationBusinessEngineeringEconomicsFinancePolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the economic liberalization of the rail industry in North America, the industry has sought continually to increase operating efficiency. The selective abandonment of track in a rail network is one of the methods most commonly used to reduce rail costs. The issue of rail-line abandonment has proven to be more controversial in Canada than in the United States. At present, the Canadian rail regulator uses costbenefit analysis (CBA) as a decision criterion to assess abandonment proposals. By considering more modern methods of financial analysis, this article constructs a counterfactual examination of an interesting 1993 track abandonment case in Canada. The case is reassessed through the lens of a real-option analytic framework. It is our contention that the information incorporated when using real options for a rail-line abandonment decision removes much of the controversy that has surrounded the process in the past.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.198 · 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