MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392897016 · doi:10.1061/9780784485286.011

Results of a Groundbreaking Integrated Delivery Project: Multi-Stakeholder Assessments and Lessons Learned from the Waaban Crossing Bridge

2024· article· en· W4392897016 on OpenAlexaffabout
Timothy Becker, Jennifer S. Shane, Anthony J. Lamanna, Mark Van Buren, James A. Scheer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProject sponsorshipProject stakeholderIntegrated project deliveryProject teamStakeholderBridge (graph theory)Project charterTransparency (behavior)BusinessProject management triangleProject managementStakeholder engagementProject planningBasis of estimateProject managerProcess managementPublic relationsKnowledge managementEngineeringComputer sciencePolitical scienceComputer securityMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Waaban Crossing bridge project located in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, was delivered with an integrated project delivery (IPD) approach. In 2020, it was recorded that this project was the first major public infrastructure project in North America to be contracted with a tri-party agreement and managed through an IPD approach. The project stakeholders selected an IPD for various and differing reasons, including risk reduction, collaborative decision making, and fiscal transparency. As the project was completed in December 2022, project stakeholders can reflect on the outcomes and lessons learned. Online surveys and semi-structured interviews of project stakeholders surface hits and misses for the project. Project participants’ answers are revealed and documented to determine the extent to which initial goals and objectives for the project were realized. Data are collected individually, so that the unique perspectives of owner, designer, prime contractor, and specialty contractor are contrasted. The project was reported a success by all stakeholders, yet fundamental business drivers that can put entities at odds with one another were present. The findings can inform planners of IPD projects on how to manage project delivery and to structure financial incentives that address the business needs of all key stakeholders.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207