MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978216279 · doi:10.1061/9780784413586.084

Key Components for the Effective Management of Airport Assets

2014· article· en· W1978216279 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Hein

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsset managementBest practiceBusinessProcess (computing)Key (lock)Asset (computer security)Engineering managementProcess managementInternational airportComputer scienceEngineeringTransport engineeringFinanceComputer securityManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While many agencies responsible for the management of airport infrastructure are working towards holistic infrastructure management, there is currently no standard in place in Canada and the United States. An international standards organization 55000 series of standards is currently under development. This standard uses the British Standards Institute Publicly Available Specification PAS 55 as a foundation for the standard development which is due for completion in late 2013. In 2011, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP), sponsored a study to develop a guidebook and primer for airport asset managers in Canada and the United States. This paper, outlines the results of asset management best appropriate practices gleaned from surveys and interviews of over 50 airports of various sizes across North America. The paper outlines a 10 step process for successful asset management implementation and provides details on policy, objectives, strategies and plans for implementing an asset management framework. Specific best practices are described and highlighted along with the keys to their successful implementation.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.010

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207