MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214838258 · doi:10.1061/geosek.0000387

Subsurface Utility Engineering and Megaprojects

2021· article· en· W4214838258 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lawrence Arcand, Ophir Wainer

Bibliographic record

VenueGEOSTRATA Magazine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderground infrastructure and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Process (computing)Engineering design processEngineeringInclusion (mineral)Integrated project deliveryUrban planningCivil engineeringEnvironmental planningConstruction engineeringBusinessComputer scienceConstruction managementGeographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experienced project owners realize that utility conflicts can be risky and pose unexpected impacts on the cost and delivery of projects, especially in urban settings. To help overcome these impacts, Subsurface Utility Engineering, or SUE, an engineering practice that has evolved considerably over the past few decades, combines aspects of civil engineering, surveying, and geophysics. SUE is often included as part of the design process on large, complex megaprojects. Ontario has been a leader in the inclusion of SUE into the planning phase of most large projects. While SUE started on municipal projects, it's now used on larger government and public-private funded transit and highway megaprojects.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGEOSTRATA MagazineSame topicUnderground infrastructure and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207