MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790131235 · doi:10.24124/2006/bpgub1303

Public provision versus P3 in public infrastructure: determining and discounting the procurement decision

2006· dissertation· en· W2790131235 on OpenAlexaff
Ashok Bhatti

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPublic-Private Partnership Projects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscountingProcurementValuation (finance)BusinessPublic infrastructureCash flowDecision modelActuarial sciencePublic–private partnershipMultiple-criteria decision analysisGeneral partnershipDecision processFinancePublic economicsEconomicsOperations researchEngineeringMarketingProcess managementPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The procurement decision is not the decision to invest in public infrastructure. The procurement decision is what is more cost effective: public provision or a public-private partnership (P3). Determining and discounting the public infrastructure are accomplished by detailing the total risks, illustrating the importance of the IRR in evaluating the cash flows, and providing a framework in which to evaluate the procurement decision based on generated savings. A recent P3 example is used to support the arguments made by taking a critical look at current valuation practices and using the proposed framework and discount rate.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.225 · 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.

Study designOther design
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPublic-Private Partnership ProjectsFrench-language works237,207