A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for infrastructure management
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In infrastructure management, multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) has emerged as a decision support tool to integrate various technical information and stakeholder values. Different MCDM techniques and tools have been developed. This paper presents a comprehensive review on the application of MCDM literature in the field of infrastructure management. Approximately 300 published papers were identified that report MCDM applications in the field of infrastructure management during 1980–2012. The reviewed papers are classified into application to the type of infrastructure (e.g. bridges and pipes), and prevalent decision or intervention (e.g. repair and rehabilitate). In addition, the papers were also classified according to MCDM methods used in the analysis. The paper provides taxonomy of those articles and identifies trends and new developments in MCDM methods. The results suggest that there is a significant growth in MCDM applications in infrastructure management applications of MCDM over the last decade. It has also been noted that many decision support tools based on multiple MCDM methods have been successfully used for infrastructure management.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it