MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386309263 · doi:10.1002/iis2.13007

Understanding Interface Criticality in Large Infrastructure Projects

2023· article· en· W4386309263 on OpenAlexaff
John Welford, Steven P. Wallace, J. A. Donovan

Bibliographic record

VenueINCOSE International Symposium · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsWSP (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterface (matter)CriticalityKey (lock)Computer scienceFailure mode, effects, and criticality analysisCritical infrastructureProcess managementRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Understanding and effectively managing interfaces has been recognised as key to mitigating the risk of project failure since the 1960's and is becoming more prominent in infrastructure as projects become more complex. This paper reviews how interfaces in infrastructure projects are traditionally identified, defined, owned, assessed, and managed. It provides recommendations on how to better align this traditional viewpoint with a whole‐of‐system approach to Interface Management through an assessment of interface criticality and shows the application of these through a case study on the redesign of two rail‐enabled ferry terminals.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINCOSE International SymposiumSame topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207