Selection of Automated Data Collection Technologies Using Multi Criteria Decision Making Approach for Pavement Management Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data collection is a critical aspect of any management system. Pavement Management Systems (PMSs) rely on consistent and repeatable data collection. Traditionally, such data has been collected through manual surveys, which are subjective, tedious, and time consuming. However, over the past two decades, there has been ongoing development of automated data collection technologies. The literature reveals a large number of services and distress data collection technologies each with different features and levels of automation and complexity. These technologies provide fast and improved methods to collect, process, and analyze data. The key is to identify and collect the most useful, reliable, cost-effective information and use it to make informed decisions for asset management. The accuracy and reliability of automated data collection can significantly impact pavement decisions at project and network levels; therefore, it is important that agencies ensure that high quality pavement condition data is collected and processed. Ultimately, this can be assured by carefully selecting the automated technology to be used for data collection. This paper presents a framework for the evaluation and selection of the appropriate automated data collection technologies for pavement management systems when there are several factors. The framework is used to facilitate the selection of the most appropriate automated data collection technologies by the aid of a Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) computational approach. A case study of the province of Ontario is presented to illustrate how the framework can be implemented.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".