Assessing and Managing the Potential Environmental Risks of Construction Projects
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
Policy makers make key decisions regarding economic development, but engineers are central to the implementation of these policies. With the realization that economic development and environment are interlinked, engineers are well advised to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts on society and environment by adopting better practices during the design and implementation of construction projects. The objective of this paper is to present a project’s proponents and construction contractors with a framework to identify the environmental risks early in a project’s life so that a proper plan could be developed to mitigate the impact of them. The paper also discusses options currently available in Canada for environmental-type insurance and contractual liability indemnity clauses. A survey conducted among construction companies to assess current risk-management practices in the construction industry show that although many companies are concerned about the possible implications of environmental risks to their project, there still needs to be more emphasis on identification and mitigation of these risks and the need to have a comprehensive framework to properly identify and develop an action plan for environmental related risk issues. The current research trends to achieve these objectives are also outlined in the paper.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it