MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W45689619

PRICING AND INVESTMENT IN A TRANSPORTATION NETWORK: THE CASE OF TORONTO AIRPORT. IN: AIR TRANSPORT

2002· article· en· W45689619 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sandford Borins

Bibliographic record

VenueClassics in Transport Analysis · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinistry of TransportTransport engineeringInvestment (military)Order (exchange)Christian ministryTraffic congestionMarginal costCongestion pricingInternational airportTransportation planningTransport networkEconomicsBusinessFinanceEngineeringMicroeconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a transportation network model is applied to simulate Toronto International (Malton) Airport in order to determine marginal social cost prices of using Malton's facilities throughout the day. The results are then evaluated in terms of an economic surplus criterion to investigate policy issues such as whether congestion tolls should be assessed and the timing and location of additional airport capacity. The Canadian Ministry of Transport is proposing to build an international airport at Pickering, 30 miles northeast of Toronto, in order to alleviate future congestion and reduce noise at Malton. Findings suggest that congestion pricing should be introduced at Malton. It is further suggested that the expansion of airport facilities is not necessary until the mid-1980s, and that when expansion occurs it should initially occur at Malton rather than Pickering. These findings contradict the recommendations of the Ministry of Transport, which were made using engineering criteria for capacity expansion and comparisons of physical magnitudes of the two airport sites. However, transportation network models that incorporate prices and determine equilibrium flows represent an advance over these planning models.

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 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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassics in Transport AnalysisSame topicAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsFrench-language works237,207