Prioritization Framework for Asset Management of New Brunswick’s Covered Bridges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heritage bridges, such as covered bridges, provide a connection to a past time and engineering methods, and form part of the architectural landscape. Accordingly, quality examples of heritage bridges should be maintained for future generations. To support the preservation of New Brunswick’s covered bridges, a novel prioritization framework was developed. The framework assesses both the network link importance and the social importance of each bridge. Four overarching strategies were then developed based on the social-link ratings. Based on the ranking of each bridge, one of the four strategies is used to inform the future management of each of the 54 covered bridges located on New Brunswick’s road network. The strategies include preservation of the existing bridge and movement of the traffic to a new bridge, preservation of the bridge and closure to traffic, decommissioning the existing bridge and replacement with a new bridge, and decommissioning of the existing bridge and removal of the highway link. How the strategy was developed and the components that form part of the assessment framework are described herein. The framework is currently being used to facilitate the transition of the exemplar covered bridges from active highway assets to lasting heritage sites.
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 | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".