MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118065619

GENERIC PROTOCOL FOR LONG LIFE PAVEMENTS COST ANALYSIS

2003· article· en· W2118065619 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLife Cycle Costing Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)Life-cycle cost analysisComputer scienceOperations researchTransport engineeringEngineeringReliability engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Justification for long life pavements is derived through positive life cycle economics, less user costs, and conservation of materials. Therefore, it is essential that the life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) is rigorous, uses the appropriate methodology, is consistent, and incorporates all the relevant factors. This paper first reviews the basic elements of LCCA, various practices, and applications. It then defines 3 major levels: 1) strategic, 2) network or system wide, and 3) project or site specific. A generic protocol for the network level is described in terms of a series of steps. It includes interfaces with the higher strategic level and the project level. The paper concludes with an application example involving an arterial street network from a Canadian city and a simplified project level application example.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLife Cycle Costing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207