MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320176120 · doi:10.1061/9780784413005.013

LCCA and Pavement Design for the New Parallel Runway at Calgary International Airport

2013· article· en· W2320176120 on OpenAlexaffabout
George Nowak

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLife Cycle Costing Analysis
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRunwayTransport engineeringInternational airportAviationEngineeringZoningCivil engineeringAeronauticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Parallel Runway Project (Runway 17L-35R) at Calgary International Airport will be the longest runway in Canada when completed in May 2014. It is a new 14,000 ft x 200 ft (4,267 m x 60 m) runway, apron, and associated taxiway system with more than 1,100,000 yd2 (920,000 m2) of concrete paving. The construction of a new parallel runway was planned since the early 1970s when the land was acquired by the Government of Canada, and both aeronautical height zoning and land use patterns have been controlled by the City of Calgary since that time to minimize residential development surrounding the new runway. The new runway will provide the airport with a FAA Group VI (ICAO Code F) CAT IIIA all-weather airport runway to satisfy the related economic needs of the Calgary region. This paper will describe the life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) that was developed to evaluate the rigid and flexible pavement design alternatives that were considered for the new runway and the resulting selection of a concrete pavement for the new runway and taxiway system. Both FAA FAARFIELD and Transport Canada (ASG-19) pavement design methodologies were considered but only the FAA sections were used in the LCCA evaluation and final pavement design.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLife Cycle Costing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207