MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176669164 · doi:10.1016/j.tust.2021.104073

Multi-criteria spatial analysis for location selection of multi-purpose utility tunnels

2021· article· en· W3176669164 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTunnelling and Underground Space Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderground infrastructure and sustainability
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)Site selectionMathematicsEngineeringComputer scienceOperations researchCivil engineeringArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-purpose utility tunnels (MUTs) integrate all underground utilities in one accessible tunnel. MUTs reduce the need for excavations and their associated costs, as well as the resulting traffic congestion. Several MUTs have been implemented in different parts of the world. Their locations have either been politically influenced or selected to preserve heritage sites or to meet the conditions of a newly developed city. Nevertheless, selecting the location in an existing city under street segments is affected by several criteria that have different spatial characteristics. Combining these characteristics and managing the trade-offs that exist between them determine the ranking of alternative MUT locations. The use of subjective and objective weights in the decision-making process will offer different perspectives from the decision-maker's perspective and the data itself, respectively. This paper aims to analyze spatial data as an input in the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) process of the MUT location selection. The objectives are: (1) defining the criteria that influence the MUT location selection, (2) defining the required GIS datasets for quantifying the criteria as scores for each candidate street segment, (3) analyzing the impacts of the dependencies between the criteria by comparing the ranking results of two MCDM methods (i.e., Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Analytic Network Process (ANP)) combined with the Technique for Order Preference by the Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), (4) analyzing the difference between using subjective weights or objective weights, and (5) developing a prototype system to integrate the MCDM methods in a GIS platform. A vector-based spatial analysis is conducted to identify the suitable locations for MUT construction based on 12 criteria representing physical condition information or affecting social costs. Two subjective MCDM methods (i.e., AHP and ANP) are used to generate each criterion's weights, and the ranking of alternatives is determined using TOPSIS. Another set of weights representing the objective weights are calculated for each criterion using the Shannon Entropy method. These weights are combined with TOPSIS to obtain an objective ranking of the alternatives. Based on the results from the different combinations (AHP + TOPSIS, ANP + TOPSIS, and ENTROPY + TOPSIS), the top alternative is always the same.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · 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