MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2262709908

Decision Models To Prioritize Maintenance And Renewal Alternatives

2006· article· en· W2262709908 on OpenAlex
Dana J. Vanier, Solomon Tesfamariam, Rehan Sadiq, Zoubir Lounis

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueNPARC · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk analysis (engineering)Computer sciencePrioritizationSet (abstract data type)Asset (computer security)Critical infrastructureOverhead (engineering)Rank (graph theory)Operations researchBusinessEngineeringProcess managementComputer security
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Publicly owned infrastructure forms a large portion of the existing infrastructure in Canada and elsewhere. Typically, asset managers must make decisions about maintenance and renewal alternatives based on sparse data about the current state of their infrastructure assets, the relative risk of failure of these assets, and the life cycle costs of proposed interventions. The infrastructure in any one organization can consist of a diverse set of assets ranging from bridges to buildings and from buried to overhead utilities. The optimal selection of proposed interventions across this broad spectrum of assets is also problematic, and currently it is performed in a subjective manner. This paper identifies a number of prioritization techniques that can be used to compare and rank repair and renewal projects. This research does not attempt to develop models to select the 'correct projects' or even to identify the best decision model or prioritization technique; rather, it attempts to illustrate by example the results of specific decision-making paradigms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.197 · 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