MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062160031 · doi:10.1139/l09-102

Utility impact rating with subsurface utility engineering in project development

2009· article· en· W2062160031 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yeun J. Jung

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderground infrastructure and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWashington State Department of TransportationPennsylvania Department of Transportation
KeywordsProcess (computing)Risk analysis (engineering)Service (business)Construction engineeringTransport engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringOperations researchCivil engineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A lack of reliable information regarding the locations of underground utilities can not only result in property damage, construction delays, design changes, claims, injuries, and even deaths but can also cause traffic delays, local business disruptions, environmental problems, and utility service breakdowns in highway projects. The subsurface utility engineering (SUE) is an engineering process designed to reduce the potential of underground utility conflicts at the planning phase. The SUE uses new and existing technologies to identify, characterize, and map accurately the underground utilities with three major activities: designation, location, and data management. In this study, a decision-support tool called the SUE utility impact rating form, which refers to utility complexity at the construction site, has been developed to determine which projects should include SUE and the appropriate levels of SUE investigation to be used. In addition, case studies with benefit–cost ratio have been performed to verify the form.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.120
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.120
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicUnderground infrastructure and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207