Decision Support Analysis in Ontario's New Bridge Management System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBMS employs an analyst-in-the-loop process of project evaluation and decision support. The software, written in Visual Basic, is a collection of interacting objects representing network-level concerns, such as budgets and programs, and project-level concerns, such as element-level treatment alternatives and bridge-level projects. Whenever a process such as bridge inspection or budget analysis changes any of the input data of the objects, the objects cooperate with each other to update their status. The overall result may be changes in priorities, performance, or costs. Each of the objects performs a part of a life cycle cost analysis for prioritization and evaluation of projects and policies. Projects, for example, examine their own element-level scope of work to determine the quantities of work items that will be required, and then use the Ministry's tender item cost database to estimate a project cost. Projects contribute this information to Programs, which accumulate systemwide costs and performance measures. The scope and benefit of each Project are determined at the element level. Each element is responsible for a life-cycle cost analysis, using typical benchmark costs and a Markovian deterioration model, to estimate the benefits of bridge element preservation and to select the optimal treatment for a given set of conditions.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".