MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288426668 · doi:10.1061/9780784484289.006

How Can I Convince Finance to Fund My Asset Management Program?

2022· article· en· W4288426668 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory M. Baird, J. P. Joly

Bibliographic record

VenuePipelines 2022 · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLife Cycle Costing Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinanceBusinessIT asset managementAsset managementRevenueCash flowAsset (computer security)Current assetDebtEconomicsMarket liquidityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A finance department is primarily composed of budget and accounting areas, with other functions such as investments, debt issuance, rate and fee setting, revenue, billing, and purchasing. Most finance directors come from an accounting background, especially for smaller to mid-sized organizations. Their training is not in quantifying risk, and in fact they are not rewarded for taking risks. However, the principles of life cycle asset management is to manage an asset at its lowest life cycle cost while still meeting a target service level. This directly ties into managing cash flow (current revenues used to pay for operations and maintenance), which in turn impacts various financial metrics such as operating cash on hand and the debt coverage ratio. Separate, but connected, is the capital plan, which can be a combination of both debt and an allocation of reserves. The justification of funding asset management practices involves benchmarking costs and demonstrating how and when assets deteriorate and the maintenance costs increase, the repair costs increase, and if the right investment intervention is not made, the asset could fail prematurely and catastrophically, thus costing a great deal more. This paper walks through the various financial/asset management concepts to convince finance to support asset management and condition assessment activities.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0120.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.027

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePipelines 2022Same topicLife Cycle Costing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207