Impact of Canadian Economic Development on Northern Montana Highways Phase II, Ports of Wild Horse and Morgan Highway Corridors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to determine whether highway infrastructure in Montana is adequate to support future expected growth in traffic resulting from economic development in Canada, and a number of potential changes in border operations, industry structure and freight-related policy. Historical data on cross-border traffic, empirical findings from existing research, interviews with selected industry representatives and subject matter experts, as well as professional judgment, were used to: i) provide an overview of the regional economy, highlighting threats and opportunities for future economic development and growth in international trade; ii) develop forecasts of cross-border commodity flows and commercial traffic under alternative scenarios and economic growth assumptions; iii) document existing conditions along two highway corridors connecting US 2 with the Canadian border, namely the S-232 corridor between US 2 and Wild Horse, and the US 191 corridor between US 2 and Morgan; and iv) assess whether existing highway infrastructure along these corridors was adequate to accommodate future expected traffic levels. A number of conclusions could be reached. First, it is anticipated that existing highway infrastructure in Montana will be adequate to handle the potential increase in overall traffic, as well as the potential increase of truck traffic for both corridors of interest. Second, should the existing pavement and geometric conditions be maintained, the expected increase in AADT and truck percentages should not degrade the weighted traffic operations below free-flow conditions (LOS A); although individual locations within the corridor may experience higher degradation in operations than the overall weighted average operations. Third, traffic operations along the highway segments immediately adjacent to the ports are expected to remain below free-flow conditions through 2032. Only under the most aggressive growth scenario would traffic conditions south of Wild Horse deteriorate below LOS A in the busiest hour, in 2028.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".