Bibliographic record
Abstract
A spectrum of requirements for the procurement of public infrastructure under various publicprivate partnership arrangements has been communicated by governments to the private sector participants. This paper suggests a structure for these requirements and demonstrates how they have been realized in publicprivate partnership projects. Government requirements are categorized and described under a structure of three dimensions: rights, obligations, and liabilities. Each dimension is further defined and explained through a number of attributes. The structure provides insights as to the basis for the different modes under publicprivate partnerships such as buildoperatetransfer, buildownoperatetransfer, and buildtransferoperate. The structure is used to examine government requirements in a number of publicprivate partnership transportation projects. The results show that, for each dimension and its related attributes, comprehensive and clear articulation of government requirements is generally needed. This will reduce the amount of supplemental materials issued for the request for proposals, help consortiums in responding with proposals that can fit the requirements and reduce the amount of time spent in negotiations and (or) the need for contract amendments to reflect marketplace realities missed earlier.Key words: publicprivate partnerships, concessions, development agreements, franchise agreements, transportation projects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".