Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, there has been a movement in North America toward a performance-based contract (PBC) model for maintaining and managing road networks. In traditional method-based contracts, the owner agency specifies techniques, materials, methods, and quantities, along with the time period for the contract. By contrast, in a PBC, the client agency specifies certain clearly defined minimum performance measures to be met or exceeded during the contract period. PBC is a type of contract in which payments are explicitly linked to the contractor's successfully meeting or exceeding certain clearly defined minimum performance indicators. Therefore, the selection of a PBC model for maintenance and rehabilitation differs significantly from that of a traditional asset management contract. Also, a PBC is more complex because of the pavement deterioration process and probability of failure to achieve the specified level of service for various performance measures along the contract period. A novel framework was developed for the selection of maintenance and rehabilitation activities with a model for pavement performance prediction and linear optimization. A case study based on data from the second generation pavement management system of the Ministry of Transportation Ontario is used to illustrate the framework.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".