SELECTED PROBLEMS OF INTERMODAL TERMINALDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN POLAND
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intermodal transport, or briefly speaking transport using at least two different modes of transport, is becoming an increasingly important element of the EU transport policy not only in terms of cost and time, but also in terms of safety and environmental protection. In Poland, mainly due to the observed development of intermodal terminals it recognizes the growing importance of this type of transport. In the last 5 years investments in the development of intermodal terminals with the use of the European Union funds have exceeded 300 million Euro. It is difficult, however, to identify the compliance of these projects with the available methodological standards and good practices. The article is just such an attempt – it examines the projects of development of intermodal terminals in Poland for the achievement of the objectives, compliance with the schedule and the efficiency of the planned budgets. A consequence of the analysis is to identify common problems for this type of projects and to offer solutions through greater use of the available project management methodological tools successfully used in other industries and sectors.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it