MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2271539076 · doi:10.1080/13675567.2015.1059412

Developing an instrument to assess seaport effectiveness in service delivery

2015· article· en· W2271539076 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tony Schellinck, Mary R. Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Logistics Research and Applications · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Ports and Logistics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPort (circuit theory)Construct (python library)Container (type theory)Software deploymentService (business)Measure (data warehouse)Variance (accounting)Computer sciencePopulationService delivery frameworkFormative assessmentProcess managementEngineeringOperations managementBusinessMarketingSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the research was to develop a standard instrument that can accurately and reliably measure port service effectiveness performance for port authorities. The study population was customers and users of container ports in the USA and Canada. We have named the instrument SEAPORT (Seaport Effectiveness Assessment for PORT managers) and it is designed to be used as a standalone measurement tool as well as input into the strategic management decisions of port managers. The paper details the methodology used in surveying three port user groups and explains the development of the construct for performance measurement by each, using variance inflation factors to finalise the formative construct components. The paper also discusses the potential future deployment of the instrument.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.311
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.127 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Logistics Research and ApplicationsSame topicMaritime Ports and LogisticsFrench-language works237,207