ESTUDO COMPARATIVO ENTRE CUSTOS ASSOCIADOS COM A UTILIZAÇÃO DE SISTEMAS MULTIMODAIS DE TRANSPORTES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O objetivo do trabalho foi estudar, através de um estudo de caso, a viabilidade do transporte multimodal quando comparado à opção tradicional do transporte rodoviário no Brasil. O estudo foi conduzido em uma empresa multinacional do setor de laminados de alumínio, onde foram comparados aspectos gerais de custos para o transporte exclusivamente rodoviário, em caminhões de diferentes capacidades, e o transporte multimodal, em duas alternativas: cabotagem e rodoviário e ferroviário e rodoviário. Os resultados mostraram que, para o caso em questão, os custos do transporte rodoviário ainda são menores quando comparados aos do transporte multimodal. Ainda que isso soe como um contra-senso no que se conhece hoje sobre multimodalidade, isso pode ser explicado por alguns fatores, como custos maiores de estoque e de seguro. Outro fator observado no estudo foram as difi culdades operacionais presentes no transporte multimodal, corroborando o que se encontra na literatura sobre o tema.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".