Durability and sustainability of infrastructure — a state-of-the-art report
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
This paper discusses the basic concepts involved in infrastructure, durability, and sustainability. At present, infrastructure facilities are designed and constructed on the basis of direct costs only, without explicit consideration of maintenance and depreciation over its service life as in other industries. Proper design, operation, and management of infrastructure must deal with every facet of its service life, ranging from conception, feasibility studies, design, construction, operation, maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, and finally decommissioning and disposal of the system after it has outlived its useful life. Every step of these considerations must be guided by overall socioeconomic and environmental concerns; in summary, they must be guided by the principles of sustainable development, which embrace the issue of embodied energy in the materials, construction, and both initial and recurring maintenance. The degradation of the performance of Canada's infrastructure over the past few decades is reviewed, along with the consequences of proper or deferred maintenance and their impact on Canada's infrastructure deficit. The roles of the civil engineering profession, including education and training, and those of the public and private sectors are discussed briefly.Key words: depreciation, design, deterioration assessment, durability, durability audits, infrastructure surveys, maintenance, life-cycle performance and costs, repair and rehabilitation, sustainability.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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