CSIR contribution to the 2010 state of engineering infrastructure in South Africa report card
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2006, the South African Institution of Civil Engineering (SAICE), utilising desktop research documentation prepared for this specific purpose by the CSIR, released the first ever “report card” of the state of engineering infrastructure in South Africa. This highlighted “the observations of the professionals responsible for the planning, construction, operation and maintenance of our nation’s life-support system”. It graded infrastructure (water, sanitation, solid waste, roads, airports, ports, rail, electricity and hospitals and clinics) on a scale from A+ through E-. Overall, it gave the nation’s infrastructure a D+ grade. The importance of infrastructure for social and economic development is underestimated and consequently its maintenance is often neglected. The purpose of the report card was to draw the attention of government, and of the public at large, to the importance of maintenance, and to factors underlying the state of repair of infrastructure ‐ factors such as skills and finance, for example. The report card was a great success in that it received media coverage exceeding the highest expectations. SAICE last year approached CSIR Built Environment with a request to again prepare desktop research documentation, on the basis of which the different infrastructure sectors could be graded. Agreement was reached, and, at the time of writing (June 2010) the research documents for most of the sectors have been completed or are nearly completed. SAICE will thereafter, with the assistance of the CSIR, grade each infrastructure sector, prepare the final document, and launch it towards the end of the third quarter of 2010.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".