La Moselle canalisée et la voie maritime du Saint-Laurent : notes comparatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is based upon the premise that in order to justify the considerable capital investment required in such projects, the construction of a deep-draught waterway must serve the long-term economic and political interests of the regions and nations concerned. The question then arises as to what role should such a waterway play so that those interests might be furthered. In trying to answer this question, the author suggests three hypotheses, namely that, 1. The new waterway must provide cheap transport for heavy goods of low per-unit value which can only be carried in bulk, 2. It must create or intensify exchange between two or more economic regions on the same continent, and further the international trade of those regions, and 3. It must encourage the development of under-undustrialized regions and the utilization of hitherto inaccessible natural resources. By comparing the infrastructure and the traffic of two such waterways,, one in Western Europe, the canalized Moselle river, the other one in North America, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the author attempts to verify these hypotheses empirically and finds that all three are valid in both situations. It was found that in both cases the chief result of the new waterways has been the increased competitiveness of the regions which they serve vis-à-vis more powerful neighbors in the competition for world markets.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".