MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185462885

Building the Energy Boom

2013· article· en· W2185462885 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mischa Wanek-Libman

Bibliographic record

VenueRailway track and structures · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTransport and Economic Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPound (networking)UpgradeBoomSubdivisionEngineeringTrack (disk drive)Oil boomBallastCommissionTransport engineeringFinanceOperations managementBusinessEconomyCivil engineeringEconomicsComputer scienceElectrical engineeringMechanical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The breadth of both of the Canadian railway system networks, along with their ability to adapt their track renewal and upgrade plans to meet growing traffic patterns, will allow them to tap into emerging markets. The Canadian National Railway Company (CN) uses current traffic volume and future growth to determine the needs of their rail infrastructure. They have developed a highly efficient supply chain that connects frac sand producers in Wisconsin with fast-growing oil and gas shale basins in the U.S. and Canada. In order to accomplish this, it is upgrading two branch lines. The first is the Barron Subdivision that was transformed from an out-of-service 80-pound line to a 286,000-pound car capacity line. The second is to upgrade the Whitehall subdivision which will allow CN to handle 286,000-pound loads along 74 miles. Canadian Pacific (CP) has shown a progressive increase in growth, from 500 carloads in 2009 to 53,500 carloads in 2012 with estimates to move 70,000 carloads in 2013. The article discusses how CP has taken steps to maintain the track infrastructure, investing over $96 million over regular maintenance programs to upgrade the Bakken network. CP has recently announced a $1.16 billion program to enhance their North American network to meet growth in oil by rail and other business lines.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.183 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRailway track and structuresSame topicTransport and Economic PoliciesFrench-language works237,207