MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2244132603

The Deregulation of Intrastate Transportation: The Texas Debate

2013· article· en· W2244132603 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Stephen Dempsey

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTransport and Economic Policies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeregulationCommissionLegislationJurisdictionBusinessMotor carrierLegislatureRegulatory reformEconomicsFinanceMarket economyPolitical scienceEngineeringLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent federal legislation, expansively interpreted by the Interstate Commerce Commission, has significantly deregulated interstate transportation. This legislation has largely pre-empted state jurisdiction over intrastate air, rail and bus carriage, but has left intrastate regulation of the motor carrier industry unmolested. Today, the overwhelming majority of states continue to regulate intrastate motor carriage. Some states, such as California, which had largely deregulated intrastate motor carrier ratemaking in 1980, have recently concluded that increased regulation is in the public interest. Ohio and West Virginia are currently conducting an investigation similar to California's comprehensive two-year study of the impact of deregulated rates, which may also lead to more stringent intrastate rate regulation.Proposals to deregulate various aspects of the intrastate motor carrier industry have been considered by the Texas legislature in every recent session. The most recent proposal, the Maximum Rates Bill, would strip the Texas Railroad Commission of its ability to prohibit discriminatory pricing by motor carriers, allowing the Commission to prescribe only maximum rates.This Article will examine interstate transportation deregulation and the likely impact that intrastate deregulation of motor carriage would have in Texas. Additionally, deregulation of the motor carrier industry by other states will be surveyed. The Article will focus on the five areas in which interstate deregulation of motor common-carriage has had an adverse impact upon the public: (1) industry economic health; (2) safety; (3) industry concentration; (4) transportation rates; and (5) service.Where appropriate, the Article will survey the empirical evidence surrounding deregulation of the airlines, railroads, and bus companies. While these industries have economic characteristics unique from motor carriers, they are strikingly similar as well, and in many markets compete for the same traffic. Moreover, of particular interest is the fact that airlines, railroads and bus companies have undergone far more comprehensive deregulation at both the interstate and intrastate level (by virtue of federal pre-emption) than have motor carriers. Hence, the deregulation of these industries provides a barometer as to what the public can expect from additional motor carrier deregulation, such as that proposed by the Maximum Rates Bill.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicTransport and Economic Policies→French-language works237,207→