MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168045297 · doi:10.3141/1742-06

Impact of New Railway Technology on Grain Transportation in Western Canada

2001· article· en· W2168045297 on OpenAlexaffabout
C. Tyler Dick, Alan Clayton

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTransport and Economic Policies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrainTransport engineeringFreight trainsHorsepowerAxleEngineeringWork (physics)ProductivityAutomotive engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impacts on railway technical productivity, infrastructure, and costs created by the introduction of new railway technology to the movement of grain in Western Canada are evaluated. By creating a geographic information system model of the railway system and assigning grain traffic to individual railway lines, operational and maintenance parameters are determined for each railway segment under a variety of scenarios. The scenarios consider the implementation of new high-horsepower locomotives and heavier freight cars. Because four new trains can do the work of five current trains, new technology decreases the number of trains and amount of equipment required, decreasing the cost of transport. Although the new cars negatively affect the infrastructure through higher axle loads, decreases in the number of trains operated more than offset associated roadway maintenance increases. The benefits of the new technology are more apparent on Canadian Pacific than on Canadian National because of the steep grades and long trains associated with Canadian Pacific operations. Over the service life of the new technology, approximately $260 million [in Canadian dollars (C$1 = US$0.65)] will be saved. Additional benefits can be obtained by performing additional upgrades to the railway infrastructure.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicTransport and Economic PoliciesFrench-language works237,207