A systematic review of current status and trends of mega-infrastructure projects
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
With the rapid development of the global economy, mega-infrastructure projects (IMPs) have developed vigorously. Compared with infrastructure, IMPs have attracted more and more attention. In the management of IMPs, an impressive number of studies have been published over the past decades. However, the researches and trends of IMPs research remain vague without a systematic review and analysis. In this study, the number of annual publications, contributions of institutions, co-occurrence of keywords and research interest were analyzed by bibliometric analysis. The result shows that, the US, China, Australia, the UK and Canada have significant advantages in IMPs research. Major topics in IMPs include stakeholders, life-cycle management, innovation development and social responsibility. Moreover the characteristic “cross-regional”, operation and maintenance management and management mode are lacking, which will be the focus during the future research. This state-of-the-art review helps to recognizing the research gaps in related fields and provide directions for future 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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