MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987100974 · doi:10.1002/sres.604

The Three Gorges Dam Project from a systems viewpoint

2004· article· en· W1987100974 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSystems Research and Behavioral Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThree gorgesScheduleYangtze riverOperations researchProject teamCivil engineeringEngineering managementComputer scienceConstruction engineeringEngineeringChinaPolitical scienceKnowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River is currently the largest construction project in the world. Because of its complexity, integration of social, environmental and technological systems, and tight coupling required by the schedule, the project should be managed using a systems approach. To find out if this was the case, the authors formed a research team, sponsored by the International Society of Systems Sciences, to tour the dam sight, interview managers and engineers, travel up the Yangtze to Chongqing, analyze problems posed by the critics of the dam and, finally, report back to the ISSS annual meeting in Shanghai following the trip. This paper reports on the team's observations, the results of the interviews and a systems model that analyzes the problems facing the dam builders. Finally, the paper concludes that the engineers and managers are aware of the interrelated problems and have planned for their solution. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.554
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.001 · 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