MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058112742 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v5n9p1

A Multi-Criteria Prioritization Framework (MCPF) to Assess Infrastructure Sustainability Objectives

2012· article· en· W2058112742 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohamed M. G. Elbarkouky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityAnalytic hierarchy processRanking (information retrieval)Likert scaleMultiple-criteria decision analysisPrioritizationProcess (computing)Quality (philosophy)Computer scienceGovernment (linguistics)BusinessEnvironmental economicsRisk analysis (engineering)Process managementOperations researchEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a Multi-Criteria Prioritization Framework (MCPF) that can assist decision-makers and government administrators in identifying and ranking infrastructure sustainability objectives in developing countries. The framework also helps governments of developing countries in assessing the priority of repair of damaged infrastructure assets, based on significant sustainability objectives. A Template of infrastructure sustainability objectives is developed through literature review and interviews with key experts. A questionnaire-based survey solicits experts’ opinions to rate the sustainability objectives based on their relative importance to the public, using a five-point Likert rating scale. The quality of experts participating in the rating process is determined using the pair-wise comparison method of the analytical hierarchical process (AHP) that calculates a crisp importance weight value of each expert, based on his or her qualification criteria. The relative importance index (RII) method is adapted to prioritize the sustainability objectives, which integrates the rating scores assigned by experts and their relative importance weight factors. A crisp facility sustainability priority index (FSPI) is computed using a survey-based approach and a weighted sum technique in multi-criteria decision analysis that determines the priority of repair of damaged infrastructure facilities, based on significant sustainability objectives. In order to test the applicability of the prioritization framework, a case study is applied in Egypt to demonstrate how the model can assist governments of developing countries in prioritizing damaged infrastructure assets that need urgent repairs. The prioritization framework presented in this paper offers a simple yet efficient evaluation technique to decision-makers with limited budgets that accounts for sustainability objectives in deciding on the repair priorities of damaged facilities.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207