MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317676901 · doi:10.1155/2023/6336630

Comparing Transport Corridors Based on Total Economic Cost

2023· article· en· W4317676901 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A.J. Hoffman, Crynos Mutendera, W.C. Venter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Ports and Logistics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorth-West University
KeywordsLandlocked countryPort (circuit theory)BusinessTransport engineeringTotal costGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper compares the performance of three competing corridors serving landlocked SADC countries (Beira, Dar es Salaam, and Durban) based on total economic cost from the perspective of transporters, retailers, and manufacturers. The motivation for the research is the paradox that, while Beira is closest to the hinterland served by these corridors, it attracts the least cargo. Historical research compares corridors in terms of both direct costs and time delays, but without translating time delays and variability in time delays into the economic costs experienced by corridor users. Unpredictable time delays reduce the competitiveness of cargo owners forming part of global just-in-time value chains. Our novel TEC model includes direct costs and the cost impact of delays and variability in delays and quantifies the relative contributions of ports, border posts, and road travel. The Port’s efficiency proved to be the biggest differentiator between these corridors, followed by border posts and road links. We found that while the Beira corridor has the lowest cost if only average travel time is considered, the Durban corridor proves to be the most competitive when variability in time delays is also considered, explaining why Durban enjoys the largest share of cargo transported to the landlocked hinterland.

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 score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicMaritime Ports and LogisticsFrench-language works237,207