MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886475873 · doi:10.1111/caje.12378

Transport infrastructure, growth and persistence: The rise and demise of the Sui Canal

2019· article· en· W2886475873 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M Flückiger, Markus Ludwig

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCulture, Economy, and Development Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemiseFellPersistence (discontinuity)Per capitaPopulationExploitEconomicsEconomic geographyGeographyEconomyDemographyEngineeringPolitical scienceCartographyComputer scienceSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper investigates the effect of transport infrastructure on the spatial distribution of population over two millennia. Focusing on the Sui Canal, one of history's greatest infrastructure projects, we show that its completion in the 7th century CE led to a strong increase in population concentration along the newly established transport artery. We exploit the fact that large parts of the canal fell into disrepair after the 12th century to analyze the persistence of this effect. We find that in 2010, more than 800 years after the Sui Canal fell into disuse, regions once directly connected to the canal are still more populous than areas that never had access. However, this population concentration is not mirrored in economic development. GDP per capita is lower in areas that lay along the course of the canal. One potential explanation for this finding is a change in the value of locational fundamentals as well as a shift in investments to the benefit of coastal regions since the initiation of the Open Door Policy in 1978.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.110 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économiqueSame topicCulture, Economy, and Development StudiesFrench-language works237,207