MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7043334476

Shipper Mistrust of Rail Use: First Stated Preference Carrier Choice Survey for the Quebec City - Windsor Corridor

2007· article· en· W7043334476 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInfoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOrganizational and Employee Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWindsorPreferenceGovernment (linguistics)Mode choiceMode (computer interface)Revealed preferencePublic transportSurvey data collectionMonorail
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Quebec City-Windsor corridor is the busiest and most important trade and transportation corridor in Canada. The transportation sector is the second largest contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the country. Governments around the world, including Canada, are considering increased mode share by rail as a way to reduce transportation emissions. To understand whether freight mode shift is a realistic means to reduce transportation emissions, an analytical model is needed that can predict the effect of government policy on mode split. This paper presents the findings of the first such model developed for the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor. The model itself is a stated preference carrier choice model of shippers in this busy corridor. The model was developed using the results of a stated preference survey undertaken in the fall of 2005. The survey was designed explicitly to evaluate shipper preferences for the carriage of intercity consignments, and particularly their preferences for carriers that contract the services of rail companies to carry these shipments via rail. The results of the study show that shippers are very mistrustful of using rail to move their consignments and suggests that increasing rails share of freight faces tremendous challenges.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne)Same topicOrganizational and Employee PerformanceFrench-language works237,207