Innovation and Stakeholder Collaboration in West Coast Gateways: An Analysis of Seaport and Freight Movement Industries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do organizations and stakeholder dynamics contribute to the adoption of innovation in gateways? We explore this question through a comparative assessment of the situation in two of North America’s major West Coast Gateways – the port of Vancouver, British Columbia, and the twin ports of Los Angeles/ Long Beach (LA/LB), California. Our research approach consists of the identification and assessment of exemplary innovations drawn from the areas of policy, technology, and operations with an emphasis on those directly related to environmental considerations. The case studies of innovation each illustrate the diverse sources of demand for and supply of innovation. These sources may be highly localized or may be regional or even pan-coastal in their origin. There are examples of innovations promoted by lead firms or by lead jurisdictions. What is common to all these innovations is the important role played by the mediators of innovation, both in their initial development and especially in their diffusion and adoption. Each of the following mediators of innovation can be found, typically in combination: information supports, stakeholder forums and engagement, technology transfer, adoption incentives and regulation, and formal and informal institutional arrangements.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".