MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144567136 · doi:10.1139/l06-049

Durability and sustainability of infrastructure — a state-of-the-art report

2006· article· en· W2144567136 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Saeed Mirza

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Corrosion and Durability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsSustainabilityNuclear decommissioningDurabilityDepreciation (economics)AuditService (business)Sustainable developmentEngineeringBusinessRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.166
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations78
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicConcrete Corrosion and DurabilityFrench-language works237,207