MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W73740343

Gateways and Canada's Ports Policy: Issues And Impediments.

2007· article· en· W73740343 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mary R. Brooks

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Education and Engineering Focus
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGateway (web page)Port (circuit theory)Corporate governanceInvestment (military)BusinessPolitical scienceEconomyEngineeringEconomicsComputer scienceFinanceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gateways and trade corridors have occupied North American thinking in recent years as businesses struggle to compete in the global trading environment. In the past year, the issue has come to the fore on the east coast of Canada, and there has been much discussion about the promise of an Atlantic Gateway. This paper begins by examining the issue of gateways and trade corridors in general, and the Atlantic Gateway in particular. It draws on three recently published studies examining the Atlantic Gateway as a potential infrastructure investment, and seeks to explore the issues and impediments surrounding the development of the gateway. It then moves to explore port governance in Canada and, more specifically, the issues of port governance that support or impede the development of gateways, and in particular the Atlantic Gateway. Port governance issues are not the only ones influencing gateway development on the east coast, and the paper will conclude by examining other regulatory barriers and administrative governance structures that influence gateway and corridor effectiveness in global supply chains serving North America.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0120.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiverse Education and Engineering FocusFrench-language works237,207