MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121824443

Intermodal Routing of Canada-Mexico Shipments Under NAFTA

2016· article· en· W3121824443 on OpenAlexaffabout
James H. Bookbinder, Neil S. Fox

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Ports and Logistics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational tradeBusinessInternational economicsEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper obtains the optimal routings for intermodal containerized transport from Canada to Mexico. Such traffic is being stimulated by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but the cost and lead times of feasible routes are not well known. We summarize the links and routes to Mexico on which one or more carriers now operate, and then determine non-dominated tradeoffs between cost and service. Every southbound route from Canada requires a transshipment point in the southern or southwestern U. S. Feasible transshipment points are also candidate locations for a manufacturing 'twin plant', a distribution centre, or a transportation hub. Here, as a first step in this bigger problem, a network is constructed between five Canadian origins and three important Mexican destinations. Each link employs available intermodal services whose transit time and transportation cost are obtained through industry sources. A shortest-path algorithm enables calculation of the route requiring least time and the route of minimum cost. Non-dominated time/cost tradeoffs are identified for each origin-destination pair. After including inventory expenses (by parametrizing the unit value of lead time), total-cost curves then eliminate some routing alternatives. Guidelines are provided on the effects of mode, carrier, and O-D locations on selection of intermodal routes to Mexico. Finally, two new intermodal services are proposed and their benefits discussed.

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 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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicMaritime Ports and LogisticsFrench-language works237,207