Port administration structures : (a study relating the characteristics of proficiency and autonomy in ports)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is concerned with the various structures under which ports are administered. It is a curious fact that there are a great number of different types of port administration structures through which the major seaports of the world are administered. One important question out of which this thesis grew is: Given the variety of port administrative structures, what can be said in defense or in favor of each of these various forms of administration? This thesis reviews the goals of port activities and the methodology of port operations. Subsequently, the opinions of writers in the field are summarized and outlined. The results of a study of a series of reports by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (sections concerning port operations) are then reported. Finally, the thesis outlines the findings of a field study involving the Port of Vancouver, British Columbia, and the Port of Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. A thesis on such a general subject as Port Administration Structure may, at first, seem too broad and too nebulous for objective study. The necessity of subjecting the present structure of ports' administrative systems in Canada to objective analysis, is reason enough for a government white paper, which is presently in the making at National Harbours Board headquarters in Ottawa. An important problem of this thesis, is that of holding exogenous variables constant, particularly the variable--the quality of management personnel. In order to find a relationship between the variable, management structure, all other variables have to be held reasonably constant. A variety of methodologies are used to draw information on the subject. Firstly, there is a review of literature available on the subject of port administration and systems of port administration. Herein, an appeal is made to the statements of professionals or "experts" in port administration. Secondly, a study is made of a series of reports on specific port operations throughout the world. These studies were classified according to (1) type of administrative structure, and (2) quality of port operations. A matrix was set up to correlate the findings. Thirdly, and finally, a field study was made (utilizing interview methodology) on two major ports of the region. The field study report, although admittedly shallow, attempted to analyze the ports around the foci. 1. Structure (also degree of autonomy), and 2. Performance.¹ The most basic conclusion to grow out of this thesis was that, by and large, major seaports are best run--most proficiently run--when they are run by professional management from the locality of the harbour, and through a structure of administration which is completely autonomous with regards to day-to-day operations, and relatively autonomous with regard to long-run planning. ¹ This is similar to what was done in the study of reports on world ports by the International Bank mentioned above.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".