Assessing the acceptance of modal shift policy among shippers and logistics providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1992, European transport policy has emphasized a shift to more eco-friendly transport modes, such as rail and inland waterways, to reduce the dominance of road transport. However, this policy direction has met with limited success, presenting a significant problem setting: the challenge of gaining acceptance for modal shift policies in the freight transport sector. To address this issue, this study aims to assess the acceptance of modal shift policies among shippers and logistics service providers. Using a mixed-methods approach including 131 survey responses and one focus group discussion, with a geographical focus on Austria, Germany and the Benelux countries, this research examines the acceptance of modal shift policies, categorized into push, and pull strategies, through five hypotheses. The results show a strong preference for pull measures and emphasize the need for EU-wide policy harmonization and improved infrastructure to increase the competitiveness of eco-friendly transport modes. • No significant difference in modal shift policy acceptance by shippers and LSPs • Previous experience influences shipper and LSP acceptance of modal shift policies • Shippers and LSPs prefer pull measures (incentive) over push measures (taxation) • Harmonization of the regulatory framework across Europe remains a major challenge
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".