MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166436656 · doi:10.1177/1087724x03259476

Analyzing Longitudinal Data to Demonstrate the Costs and Benefits of Pavement Management

2004· article· en· W2166436656 on OpenAlexaff
Lynne Cowe Falls, Susan Tighe

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Works Management & Policy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsset managementAgency (philosophy)BusinessAsset (computer security)Process (computing)Cost–benefit analysisIT asset managementRisk analysis (engineering)Data collectionCost accountingCost estimateProcess managementTransport engineeringComputer scienceFinanceEngineeringAccountingComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Roads and highways generally represent the single largest asset value of public infrastructure. Preservation of this asset value through timely and cost-effective maintenance and rehabilitation presents an enormous financial, management, and technical challenge to public agencies. Until recently, agencies have relied on designated or “silo” systems for pavement, bridge, and other management systems; which shared common elements of data collection, analysis, and reporting. Successful implementation of asset management requires a methodology for trade-off analysis between competing silos at the strategic level. Ultimately, many agencies may need to significantly change their business decision-making process, potentially resulting in the costs of implementation outweighing the benefits. This article describes frameworks for using longitudinal data to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of management system implementation. It also demonstrates how the same data can be used to improve technical models, thereby producing immediate benefits to the agency through enhanced decision making and, ultimately, reduced costs.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Works Management & PolicySame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207