Assessing public sector road construction projects’ critical success factors in a developing economy: Definitive stakeholders’ perspective
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
This study assessed the critical success factors (CSFs) of public-sector road construction projects execution from the perspective of definitive stakeholders associated with such projects by drawing on in-depth semi-structured interviews (16) and surveys (372) in Ghana, thirty-four (34) CSFs were identified. Using Relative Importance Index (RII), Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients, and Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance and the Chi-square test of significance statistics, the top ten most important factors in descending order are: the absence of political interference, project continuity by successive governments, adequate project funding, support from financial institutions and donor agencies and countries, government commitment to the project, absence of clientelism, absence of nepotism, no political corruption, payments of contractors on time and absence of court injunction or legal suit and land litigations. This study contributes to road construction CSFs in the context of public sector road construction in developing economies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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