MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W618768674

A Synthesis on Cross-Border Travel: Focus on El Paso, Texas

2014· article· en· W618768674 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ipek N. Sener, Karen Lorenzini, Luis David Galicia, Rafael M. Aldrete

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 93rd Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCross-Border Cooperation and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Cross-border cooperationToolboxBridge (graph theory)Regional sciencePopulationFocus (optics)GeographyBusinessComputer scienceSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because of the importance of cross-border transactions to local, regional, and national economies, a complete understanding on the characteristics of cross-border travel is invaluable. In addition, for all modes of cross-border travel, improved efficiency is often preferred as an overarching solution, and yet formulating specific improvement strategies depends upon a fundamental understanding of the cross-border issues as well as the factors influencing the travel. The objective of this study is thus to provide a synthesis review to examine cross-border travel, explain influences on that travel, and contribute toward a better understanding the travel behavior decisions crossing an international border bridge. The current study has a particular focus on the case of El Paso, Texas; however, the study also provides valuable insights in the context of other U.S. border areas, both Canadian and Mexican, demonstrating the border’s import to the U.S. This study can serve as the basis for a comprehensive analysis and a robust model to understand the cross-border travel choice decisions. Moreover, as it provides a more complete understanding, this focused review contributes substantially to the local agencies’ analysis toolbox when considering proposed policy changes, capital improvements, and techniques to market cross-border travel to particular population groups, such as pedestrians.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.420 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 93rd Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicCross-Border Cooperation and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207