MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2749145742 · doi:10.1061/9780784480922.017

Lessons Learned from the Canadian Agency Implementation of Transportation Asset Management Systems

2017· article· en· W2749145742 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Hein

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIT asset managementAsset managementBusinessAgency (philosophy)Asset (computer security)Competence (human resources)Investment managementFinanceProcess managementEconomicsComputer scienceMarket liquidityComputer securityManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207