MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796786165 · doi:10.1177/0361198118768532

The Life and Death of North American Rail Freight Electrification

2018· article· en· W2796786165 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John G. Allen, Gregory L. Newmark

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTransport and Economic Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrificationService (business)EngineeringAsideTransport engineeringNatural resource economicsBusinessElectricityEconomyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although completely dieselized today aside from certain commuter and intercity passenger routes, U.S. railroads were world leaders in electrification in the early 20th century. The Pennsylvania Railroad and the Milwaukee Road had the most extensive electrifications, but several other railroads electrified largely for freight service. This paper explores the decisions to electrify freight railroads in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico (largely for short tunnels where steam locomotives were not practicable, mountain grades, and busy traffic districts), and why electrifications were discontinued (underpowered installations, aging electric infrastructure, and changes in ownership that made electrification geographically obsolete). Energy shortfalls and price spikes since the 1970s have provoked interest in electrification from freight railroads, but this interest has subsided whenever fuel prices decline. Although it is possible that environmental considerations may lead to electrification in some contexts, as long as fossil fuel prices remain low, electrification is unlikely to play a major role on North American railroads.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicTransport and Economic PoliciesFrench-language works237,207