Time and Cost Performance Status of Sikta Irrigation Contract
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The government of Nepal (GoN) is implementing many small, medium, and large types of Irrigation Projects. Sikta Irrigation Project (SIP) is the National Pride Project implemented by the GoN. The command area of the project has 42766.00 ha and beneficiaries of the project have 46715 households consisting of 449588 population of Banke district. The paper aims to assess the contract performance in terms of the Time and Cost of the Sikta Irrigation Project, Banke, Nepal. Design/Methodology/Approach: Using secondary data of contract, content Analysis of Project documents review and Key Informant Interviews were used for assessing the contract performance. Findings/Result: Sikta Irrigation Project has a total of 52 contracts out of which consider for study based on documentation, only 18 contracts completed based on schedule time whereas 16 contracts behind schedule. However, 16 contracts are still on going far behind the schedule and one contract terminated. The actual expenditure of the project has 16.26 billion (64.90% of estimated cost) and the allocated budget was 18.26 billion (72.99% of estimated cost) whereas the estimated cost has 25.032 billion. It indicates that the progress of the project was 64.90% and fails to complete the scheduled time 2076/077. The client should prepare the project well before implementation with proper planning, designing, and detailed study from the beginning. Originality/Value: It is empirical research to assure the project performance based on lessons from Sikta Irrigation Project. Paper Type: Analytical Policy Research
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it