MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048112832 · doi:10.1061/9780784483190.038

Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Multi-Purpose Utility Tunnel Location Selection

2020· article· en· W3048112832 on OpenAlexaff
Yisha Luo, Tersoo K. Genger, Amin Hammad

Bibliographic record

VenuePipelines 2020 · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderground infrastructure and sustainability
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalytic hierarchy processMultiple-criteria decision analysisSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceSite selectionOperations researchGeographic information systemKey (lock)Process (computing)ExcavationTransport engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligenceGeographyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Repeated excavations of buried utilities cause road congestion, maintenance conflicts, and subsequently increase social costs. An alternative of burying utilities is hosting them in a multi-purpose utility tunnel (MUT). MUTs reduce the excavation needs and provide easy access for all year-round inspection and maintenance for utilities. MUT planning is a key factor of urban underground space planning. Previous research focused on MUT technologies; however, few papers focused on MUT planning. Location selection for MUTs is an important phase for MUT planning and it is complicated because it depends on several criteria. This paper provides a general method for MUT location selection at different urban scales using geographic information system (GIS) and multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) for the selection of potential MUT locations. The weights of the criteria are calculated using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method. A case study is used to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed method.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePipelines 2020Same topicUnderground infrastructure and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207