MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409503212 · doi:10.1155/atr/2036525

Evaluation of Smart Highway Operation and Maintenance Risk: Based on AHP‐FCE Model

2025· article· en· W4409503212 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Run Xu, Guoqiang Zhong, Li Li, Guohao Wang, Cheng Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvaluation and Optimization Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalytic hierarchy processTransport engineeringComputer scienceHighway maintenanceEngineeringReliability engineeringOperations research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The smart highway (SH) has an important role in realizing the strategy of strong transportation power, and operation and maintenance (O&M) management plays a decisive role in ensuring the safe and stable operation of the SH. This paper takes the Shandong F section SH project as an example and constructs the risk evaluation index system of SH O&M stage. Then, by empowering with the hierarchical analysis method, this paper evaluates the management risk of the O&M stage by using fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method and proposes risk response measures. The results show that the overall management of SH O&M in the Shandong F section is in the medium risk, in which the business risk and the smart management risk are large, the green risk and the natural environment risk are in the medium level, and the financial risk is small. The results can help enterprises effectively respond to the risk challenges facing the O&M process of the SH and promote the sustainable development of the SH.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicEvaluation and Optimization ModelsFrench-language works237,207