Multi-Dimensional Utility Model for Selection of a Trenchless Construction Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a decision-support system developed to assist practicing professionals in matching project parameters with characteristics of the various construction methods and evaluating the degree to which each method satisfies user requirements. The model, named Innovative Modular Procedure for Evaluation of Construction Technologies (I.M.P.E.C.T), combines concepts from constraint satisfaction techniques, linear algebra, calculus, and applied statistics. The proposed model employs a two-step selection process, namely a technical evaluation and a preference evaluation. At the technical evaluation stage, characteristics of each construction method are compared with the project's qualifying attributes (i.e. pipe diameter) to ensure technical soundness of the method. The preference evaluation process includes parameters considered to be controlled by the user (i.e. cost). The model determines the likelihood that each of the construction methods will satisfy the user objectives and rank it based on its utility value, which is equal to the sum of the product of each degree of user objective satisfaction and the probability of such an outcome. The proposed method represents a powerful decision-making model capable of addressing the complex and interacting technical, social, business, and risk aspects associated with many large trenchless technology projects.
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) | 0.001 | 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".