Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study in this report reviews international experiences of contracting of routine road maintenance. The study describes the contracting models used in Norway, Scotland and Ontario (Canada), as well as the results from the relevant research literature. Focus has been to map differences in efficiency between traditional and performance-based contracting, as well as the effects of incentives, risk sharing, competition and quality dimensions in contracting. The results show that Ontario and Norway have largely performance-based contracting models. Recently, some aspects of these contracts have been reconsidered because of problems mainly with respect to winter maintenance. In Ontario, quality is now considered as one component for identifying the winning bidder; Norway has a new reimbursement model that aim to balance the contractors' incentives. Also, Norway is testing new contracting models in five areas. Scotland uses traditional contracts and is testing a new performance indicator to improve winter maintenance by using measurements of friction. In the literature, the view on performance-based contracting is often positive. But no study has been found that measures the efficiency of different contracting models that accounts for possible simultaneous changes in quality or long-term effects.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.013 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".