MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307136686 · doi:10.1155/2022/2559663

Optimizing Intermodal Transport and Hub Location Problem for ECOWAS in the Context of Improving Intra-African Trade

2022· article· en· W4307136686 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shi Jihui, Kesewa Opoku Agyemang, Zhaolin Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Ports and Logistics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Social Science Fund of ChinaNational Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences
KeywordsCentralityTransshipment (information security)Context (archaeology)Ranking (information retrieval)Transport engineeringNode (physics)Pairwise comparisonBusinessOperations researchGeographyComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trade within Africa is at an all-time low, with a lack of an optimal intermodal transportation network and a high cost of business serving as a deterrent to trade. This research studies Intra-African Trade within ECOWAS using a hierarchical spatial aggregation process to identify 27 nodes. Distance-based weighted centrality measures employed TOPSIS to model a ranked node centrality of Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) intermodal transport of railway, road, and waterway networks. The ten highest-ranking nodes identified from the mixed-integer linear program adopted as candidate hubs, thus selecting Ibeshe ferry terminal in Lagos and Tema Harbour in Accra for waterway; Thies, Ibadan, Conakry, Monrovia and Thies for railway; and Thies and Ibadan for road. We conclude with sensitivity analysis and a discussion of management implications for ECOWAS. This paper demonstrated that a limited number of transshipment hubs would encourage interregional trade and cut point-to-point transportation costs and lead to economic growth and development.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 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 topicMaritime Ports and LogisticsFrench-language works237,207