MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2473155066 · doi:10.1061/9780784479926.054

Public Sector Passenger and Freight Rail Programs: A Survey of U.S. Practice

2016· article· en· W2473155066 on OpenAlexaff
David B. Clarke, Libby Ogard, Jennifer Beckett

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTransport and Economic Policies
Canadian institutionsPrime Focus World
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessVariety (cybernetics)Scope (computer science)Private sectorInvestment (military)Public sectorSustainabilityPublic transportProcess (computing)MarketingPublic economicsEconomic growthTransport engineeringEconomicsEngineeringPolitical scienceEconomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unlike those of many countries, railways in the United States are largely in private ownership and operation. For many years, the relationship between the public sector and the railways was mainly one of regulation rather than investment. Recently, this is changing and the public sector—particularly at the state level—has a rich body of programs aimed at supporting rail transportation. While regulation is still one focus, public programs today recognize and promote rail for a variety of other reasons, including economic development, environmental benefits, congestion relief, and sustainability. This paper describes the results of recent research into the scope, objectives, funding source, and benefit delivery mechanisms of public sector rail programs. The data were collected through an inventory process accompanied by a survey and targeted interviews. The research findings may be useful for public agencies seeking to establish new rail programs and for railroads exploring public-private partnerships.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTransport and Economic PoliciesFrench-language works237,207