Revisiting the concept of transport corridors: a comparative analysis of Europe and North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a vast literature on transport corridors. Regretfully, this literature has not been the object of a synthesis allowing an assessment of corridor as a product of successive evolutions in the field of transport and communi¬cations. Our objective consists in clarifying the evolution of knowledge applied to transport corridors. First, we examine the concept of corridor, its components and organisational conditions. We then analyse the evolution of the concept of corridors within the broader context of public policies and governance. A comparative study of corridor policies in Europe and North America illustrates different political discourses. Our study demonstrates that the issues of intermodality, sustainable development and governance will contribute to shape transport corridors. Il existe une importante littérature sur les corridors de transport. Cette littérature n’a pas fait l’objet d’une synthèse permettant d’aborder le corridor en tant que produit des évolutions successives dans le domaine des transports et des communications. Cet article a alors pour objectif de clarifier l’évolution des connaissances appliquées à la théorie, aux composantes et aux conditions d’organisation des corridors de transport. Nous analysons ensuite l’évolution de ce concept dans le contexte des réflexions plus générales que les politiques publiques portent sur le secteur des transports. Enfin, une étude comparative des politiques de corridors en Europe et en Amérique du Nord illustre ces différentes rhétoriques politiques. Notre étude montre que les trois questions d’intermodalité, de développement durable et de gouvernance contribuent à façonner ces rhétoriques et les pratiques politiques associées.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".