Upper Midwest Freight Corridor Study - Phase II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growing travel, freight movements, congestion, and international competition threaten the economic well being of the Upper Midwest States. More congestion, slower freight movement, fragmentation, and economic slow-down are the probable outcomes if the threats are not addressed. However, planning for and managing the growth of freight transport are very complex issues facing transportation agencies in the region. In an effort to crystallize the issues and generate thought and discussion, eleven white papers were written on important factors that influence freight and public policy. The papers provide the background on specific aspects of freight in the Upper Midwest. As a collection, the papers provide a primer on freight issues and related responses that may form the basis for a regional freight agenda. The Upper Midwest Freight Corridor Coalition used input from transportation administrators in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, and Iowa, as well as the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba, along with the Federal Highway Administration and researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the University of Illinois-Chicago, and the University of Toledo to draft an agenda to help meet the challenge of freight movement and economic vitality within the Upper Midwest. The agenda identifies thirteen priority initiatives to respond to growing freight demand. Data and technology are needed to support the initiatives outlined in the agenda, and both topics are discussed in subsequent plans. The final report in Volume II is a white paper explaining the importance of transportation to the economic well being of the region.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".