MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743034440 · doi:10.1061/9780784480885.011

Buried Pipeline Utility Relocation for Light Rail Transit in Phoenix What Is the Best Project Delivery Method?

2017· article· en· W2743034440 on OpenAlexaff
Tricia Cook

Bibliographic record

VenuePipelines 2017 · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderground infrastructure and sustainability
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelocationPhoenixPipeline (software)Transit (satellite)Computer scienceRail transitLight rail transitTransport engineeringEngineeringPublic transportOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Valley METRO used three delivery methods to build the first three light rail transit (LRT) segments in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Central Phoenix East Valley, completed in 2008, used a conventional Design-Bid-Build approach. However, Northwest Extension and Central Mesa Extension, which were finished in 2015 utilized a Construction Manager at Risk approach and a Design-Build approach, respectively. Utility relocation is an essential part of LRT system construction, where the alignment is located in an existing road right-of-way. The project delivery method impacts both the design and the construction for utility relocation in many ways. Three notable areas of differences are potholing, schedule and partnering. Using examples from each LRT segment, similarities and differences in impacts for each delivery method, are analyzed from a designer’s perspective.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePipelines 2017Same topicUnderground infrastructure and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207