MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Chicago–East Coast Corridor: Changing Intermodal Patterns

2012· article· en· W2132058590 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bradley Hull

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban and Freight Transport Logistics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEast coastTruckGeographyTraffic flow (computer networking)West coastTransport engineeringEngineeringOceanographyPhysical geographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Chicago–East Coast Corridor is a network of highways and railroad tracks connecting Chicago to cities on the East Coast. Cargos flow through it in both directions—Asian cargos flow from West Coast ports through Chicago for eastward delivery, and cargos from India and Europe flow from East Coast seaports to Chicago and beyond for westward delivery. This heavily used Corridor is currently expanding in both capacity and service offerings. However, two areas of the Corridor, Detroit and Northeast Ohio, remain less well served. The article outlines the changes taking place and suggests opportunities that might benefit these two areas. In particular, the St. Lawrence Seaway is part of an all-water minimum-mileage route between the Midwest and Rotterdam and Antwerp. This underutilized and almost forgotten route, if used, would eliminate a significant amount of rail and truck traffic to Detroit and Northeast Ohio. Further, increased rail deliveries from Halifax and Montreal to Detroit would allow Detroit to develop a substantial rail hub, reducing its truck deliveries from Chicago. Both suggestions would significantly reduce trucking in the Corridor.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation JournalSame topicUrban and Freight Transport LogisticsFrench-language works237,207