MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037581322 · doi:10.1061/9780784413517.131

Microeconomics for Infrastructure Rehabilitation

2014· article· en· W2037581322 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

VenueConstruction Research Congress 2014 · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationDomain (mathematical analysis)Balance (ability)Perspective (graphical)MaximizationComputer sciencePublic infrastructureEconomicsMicroeconomicsManagement science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infrastructure rehabilitation has been a tremendous challenge for municipalities and public agencies. Although several methods exist to allocate a limited rehabilitation budget among a large number of competing assets, no efforts provide solid economic reasoning or justification behind fund-allocation decisions. Thus, this paper introduces a new perspective in infrastructure rehabilitation, inspired by the broad array of concepts available in the science of microeconomics. The paper discusses four microeconomic theories and examines their applicability in the infrastructure domain: equilibrium between demand and supply to balance economic decisions, utility maximization through equitable return on spending,indifference curves for sensitivity analysis, and loss-aversion behavior of decision makers. Initial results of an actual case study of 1300 pavement sections proved the applicability of basic microeconomic concepts in the infrastructure rehabilitation domain.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.258 · 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