A Comprehensive Decision Support Framework in the Front-End Phase of Major Transportation Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying the best project alternative is a critical challenge facing major transportation projects (MTPs) at the front-end phase. The increasing complexity and dynamism of MTPs have imposed substantial uncertainties and subjectivities in the decision-making process. Despite the efforts made in previous studies, a stochastic framework to facilitate the comprehensive assessment is still missing. In this research, a stochastic decision support framework has been developed to cope with the considerable uncertainties in MTPs. The features of the proposed decision support framework are achieved by using the Bayesian belief network modeling technique to provide a comprehensive registry of the relevant decision factors, establish the interrelationships between these decision factors, and consequently quantify uncertainties of decision indicators. The calculated probabilities for decision indicators have been interpreted to a satisfaction level of stakeholders based on their constraints as a multi-criteria decision model. A Monte Carlo simulation has been conducted to simulate a real condition using the decision indicators probability as input. Finally, MTP alternatives prioritized according to the anticipated satisfactory gained among various stakeholders. The created framework is used in a preliminary alternative assessment for case study related to Detroit River International Crossing project. The case study investigates the decision-making of key stakeholders related to prioritization of alternative projects for a new access between Detroit, US and Winsdor, Canada. The project team verified applicability of the model. The developed framework and the case study highlight the significance of identification of a stochastic project alternative assessment method. The proposed framework provides decision-makers with a decision support tool to facilitate front-end phase of MTPs.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".