MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1563697567 · doi:10.1787/5kmh36j9vwmw-en

Flexible and Alternative Approaches to Providing School Infrastructure in Alberta, Canada

2010· paratext· en· W1563697567 on OpenAlexaffabout
Allison Matichuk

Bibliographic record

VenueCELE exchange · 2010
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Technology Integration
Canadian institutionsAlberta Advanced Education
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Like many other jurisdictions, the western Canadian province of Alberta is seeking cost-effective and creative ways of providing school infrastructure that meets the needs of 21 st century learning.Solutions are being found through the use of alternative financing and procurement arrangements and through innovative approaches to creating flexible school facilities.Province of Alberta Population: 3.6 million Size: 662 000 square kilometers Number of schools (public and private): 2 091 Number of students: 596 113 AltErnAtivE finAnCing And ProCurEMEnt "Alberta Schools Alternative Procurement" initiative In 2007, Alberta announced the first phase of the Alberta Schools Alternative Procurement (ASAP) initiative: 18 new schools, providing 12 000 new spaces.ASAP Phase 1 is the largest kindergartento-Grade 9 schools project in Canada.It builds on the experiences of similar large-scale investment operations seen recently in various countries and adapts the Design-Build-Finance-Maintain concept to meet Alberta's educational infrastructure needs.This project involves a public-private partnership (P3) between the Government of Alberta and a private consortium selected through an open competition.For ASAP 1, the contract was awarded to BBPP Alberta Schools Limited.Under Alberta's P3 arrangement, the schools will be owned and operated by the respective four project school boards in Calgary and Edmonton.Once the schools are completed in June 2010, the province will advance CAD 125 million of the overall CAD 634 million contract to the consortium and will at that time begin capital and maintenance payments for a 30-year term.The maintenance agreement requires the contractor to provide major maintenance for repairs such as boilers and roof replacements.Prior to the end of the 30-year period there is a hold back provision to ensure the schools are in good condition before the responsibility for maintenance is transferred to

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0140.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCELE exchangeSame topicEducation and Technology IntegrationFrench-language works237,207