MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338808301 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2015-0486

Examining budget policies for new and existing facilities: a system dynamics approach

2016· article· en· W2338808301 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Roozbeh Rashedi, Tarek Hegazy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystem dynamicsTask (project management)Computer scienceService (business)Plan (archaeology)Operations researchTerm (time)Environmental economicsOperations managementBusinessEngineeringEconomicsSystems engineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sustaining acceptable service in large facility networks is a complex task, particularly under limited budgets, rapid deterioration, and increasing service demands. Policy-makers are, therefore, challenged to make efficient balance between the construction of new facilities and the renewal of existing ones to suit both the short and the long-term needs. To support policy-makers, this paper proposes an efficient decision support system using the system dynamics simulation technique to analyze the impact of various budget allocation policies and to optimize policy decisions. The proposed system dynamics model was tested using a case study from the Toronto District School Board involving more than 400 schools. It can find the optimum budgeting strategy that minimizes the overall facility condition index and total life cycle cost over a long-term strategic plan. The system dynamics model proved its ability to find a budget allocation policy with much better results than the typical enrolment-based approach.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207