MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Multi-Criteria Analysis of High Speed Rail System in Canada

2023· article· en· W4391342609 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Atul Manmohan, Kshitij Saxena

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInvestment (military)Transport engineeringBusinessTransportation planningPopulationEnvironmental planningEnvironmental economicsEngineeringEconomicsPolitical scienceGeographyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-speed rail (HSR) has drawn attention worldwide as a potential solution to the transportation and mobility issues of the twenty-first century. For the past thirty years, several feasibility studies and discussions have advocated building one or more HSR systems in Canada. Quite a few studies have highlighted the benefits of HSR for Canada's economy, reducing traffic, and enhancing connectivity between cities. However, Canada's size, population density and high costs involved in construction and operation, etc. pose significant challenges to HSR implementation. This paper analyzes the feasibility of HSR in Canada using multiple criteria, such as geography, demography, financing, investment, and regulatory policies and arrives at a recommendation. The objective of this paper is to present various factors and trade-offs to gain better understanding of HSR planning in Canada, thereby adoption of a distinctive and holistic approach. This paper provides a ready-to-go and comprehensive assessment for policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers regarding HSR viability by enabling informed decision-making aiming towards potential operations of this transportation system.

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)0.003
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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsFrench-language works237,207