Current State of Practice in Selection and Implementation of Airport Capital Project Delivery Methods
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
Selection and implementation of project delivery methods are important decisions in an airport capital project that will determine how the airport agency employs procurement and financing strategies, management structures, and cash flows. Most current delivery method selection approaches in the aviation sector rely on experience and opinions of construction experts. A research gap exists regarding understandings of existing and emerging delivery methods as well as their alignment with procurement and management structures, organizational capabilities, and financial planning considerations. The objective of this study was to investigate the current state of practice in selection and implementation of project delivery methods in airport projects. A content analysis of 26 airport projects across the US was performed to synthesize documents regarding selection and implementation of project delivery methods and procurement approaches. The results show that alternative contracting methods, including construction manager-at-risk, design-build, and public–private partnership, are increasingly used in authority/quasi-government airports because of their connection to financial planning, contract strategies, and procurement methods. This study contributes to the body of knowledge by providing a comprehensive review of current practices of selecting and implementing project delivery methods in capital airport projects. The results also imply the importance of considering risk-based methodologies for project delivery selection in the aviation sector.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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