Lessons Learned from the Canadian Agency Implementation of Transportation Asset Management Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Roadway agencies in Canada are at various levels of maturity in the implementation of transportation asset management programs and systems. While provincial highway agencies and the larger cities generally are more advanced because they have more resources than smaller municipalities, strong leadership and champions within the agencies are moving forward to implement comprehensive systems to assist in the stewardship of our aging infrastructure. There is a strong movement in Canada for agencies to integrate investment planning and programming and move away from traditional silo-based infrastructure management systems into one comprehensive system. Agencies are moving toward systems that track asset performance from construction to retirement and use life cycle cost to make whole life maintenance and rehabilitation investment decisions. These systems report on achievements in maintaining and improving asset condition as measured by key performance measures. There are significant differences across Canada in terms of the scope of agency asset management systems. Some agencies have a strong desire and leadership for asset management while others are hesitant to change. Others have constituted asset management groups who are responsible for all of the functions of the asset management system. The level of competence of asset management support varies across agencies. Many have reported difficulty in maintaining consistency of staff in asset management positions, mainly due to attrition or due to lateral moves within the agency. The method and degree of communication of asset management activities varies significantly across Canada. Most agencies have developed some form of annual “report card” to communicate progress on the effective management of assets. For municipal agencies, the report cards are geared toward the public and are used to assist in establishing funding support for long-term sustainable asset management. This paper outlines the findings, best practices and lessons learned from a review of the detailed transportation asset management practices of 25 provincial, municipal, trade organization and private sector road and light rail agencies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".