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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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