MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901979946 · doi:10.5539/emr.v8n1p1

Conflicts and Reconciliation at the Port-City Interface in Contemporary European Cities

2018· article· en· W2901979946 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Management Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Ports and Logistics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPort (circuit theory)ContainerizationSpace (punctuation)GlobalizationEconomyBusinessRegional sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringGeographyComputer scienceEconomicsLawContainer (type theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since ports were first created in coastal and riverbank cities, they have remained an integral part of many cities. As maritime trade developed and required more space and infrastructure, ports have gradually become more specialized for maritime purposes. Since the more recent advent of containerization and globalization, port-city relations have become increasingly complex. Therefore, it is important to investigate methods to resolve the conflicts in port-city interfaces. This paper demonstrates an in-depth research study of the approaches taken by major European ports to reconcile port-city conflicts and provides insight and guidance for port authorities on this issue.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.205 · 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