Exploring the Node Importance and Its Influencing Factors in the Railway Freight Transportation Network in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Node importance is a key factor affecting the overall operation efficiency of a railway freight transportation network (RFTN) that can be measured with the indicators of Hub and PageRank. Based on complex network theory and the national railway cargo exchange data of China’s provinces, this study constructs an RFTN model with the 31 provinces as the nodes and measures the values of Hub and PageRank for the 31 provinces. Then, the time evolution law of the importance of the provincial nodes is analyzed comprehensively, and, using a regression model, the influencing factors of the importance of the provincial nodes are identified. The results show the following. (1) The uneven distribution of natural resources will affect the spatial changes in the importance of RFTN nodes. The Hub values tended to cluster around the average, and the economic structure of the output-oriented provinces improved as a whole. At the same time, the PageRank values of many provinces in the central and western regions significantly increased, and those provinces exhibited more frequent exchanges of goods with other provinces and closer economic ties with other regions. (2) The traffic fixed asset investments and the population density have the most obvious influences on the importance of the provincial nodes with a positive effect. In contrast, the railway freight concentration (RFC) coefficient, geographical location (longitude and latitude), and coastal region all have negative effects on the importance of provincial nodes. The results of this study provide scientific decision-making support for the reasonable establishment and distribution of RFTN hubs in China.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".