Competition in Public Transport: An Exploratory Research in Institutional Frameworks in the Public Transport Sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis finds its origins in the debates that developed in the 1980s in Western Europe as to the role competition and private entrepreneurship should play in the provision of public transport services. At the time, observation of the debates showed there was widespread misunderstanding about the institutional changes put in place and the results obtained. Against that background, the research in this thesis centred around gaining a deeper understanding of the variety of institutional frameworks that can exist in the public transport sector and on how these develop, with as main focus the growing and evolving role of ‘competition’ as an institutional feature that can take many guises. The main research questions are:<br/>(i) What are the main institutional frameworks that have arisen in the European public transport sector since the pressure for a wider usage of ‘competition’ appeared in the 1980s?<br/>(ii) How have these institutional frameworks fared since? In particular, what developments can be observed and what can be said about them?<br/>(iii) What are the main resulting policy challenges and options?
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".