MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297103591 · doi:10.1155/2022/1568449

Factors Affecting Evaluation of Railway Bulk Freight Rate: A Novel Cloud Theory-Based Approach

2022· article· en· W4297103591 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jingwei Guo, Yimin Wang, Yang Qin, Qinglin Li, Zhongqi Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Decision-Making Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaChina Railway
KeywordsRandomnessCloud computingComputer scienceProcess (computing)Key (lock)Generator (circuit theory)Transformation (genetics)Operations researchEngineeringMathematicsPower (physics)Computer securityStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Railway freight rates are seen as a key driving factor of global trade activities, influenced by numerous factors. Given the limitations of fuzziness and randomness of variable quantification in the previous studies, this paper proposes a cognitive cloud model of factors influencing railway bulk goods freight rates. In the cognitive cloud model, randomness and fuzziness are described by three parameters. Furthermore, a cloud generator including forwarding and backward cloud generators is designed to solve the bidirectional conversion between qualitative indicators and quantitative values. In addition, we propose a floating cloud gathering algorithm to determine the weight of the index system to solve the uncertainty problem in the transformation process of qualitative indicators. Finally, the cognitive cloud model and the adapted algorithm are used to perform an in-depth analysis of the affecting factors of Z Railway Bureau freight transport pricing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicAdvanced Decision-Making TechniquesFrench-language works237,207