MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327968189 · doi:10.54691/bcpbm.v42i.4562

Exploring the Development Trend of Ports in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) Based on the Intermodal Transport Development of Guangzhou Port

2023· article· en· W4327968189 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBCP Business & Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Ports and Logistics
Canadian institutionsTransport Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultimodal transportPort (circuit theory)Transport engineeringTelecommunicationsBayBusinessComputer scienceEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, multimodal transport is developing rapidly, but the individual ports in the Greater Bay Area (GBA) have been operating separately. In this paper, the development status of multimodal transport in Guangzhou port will be used as an example to discuss the development trend of GBA ports. The study found that the multimodal transport model of the Port of Guangzhou has taken shape. However, there are still many shortcomings with old facilities, difficulties in sharing data, and a lack of unified management, which are common to all ports in the GBA. This paper aims to provide ideas for the direction of port development in GBA, hoping to enhance intermodal transport to connect the ports, improve the efficiency of freight transport and promote the formation of a unified dispatch centre for GBA ports. As a result, it is hoped that the GBA Port Management Committee will be built to achieve more efficient management.

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.137 · 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