Public-private partnership and its impact on transport infrastructure development: the experience of Australia and Canada
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
Public-private partnership is a governments’ progressive political decision to involve the private sector in the development of public infrastructure by the provision of services such as design, financing, construction, operation, reconstruction, maintenance, etc. The article is devoted to determining the foundations of public-private partnership organization and its impact on improving transport infrastructure. The basic principles of public-private partnership development in the article were researched, taking the historical features of its and modern implementation goals. The study examines the main features of public-private partnership development and its positive and negative aspects. The tasks of the public and private sectors in this cooperation are outlined. The experience of advanced countries of the world (Australia, Canada) in using public-private partnership for the development of public infrastructure was researched. The features of the implementation of Australian and Canadian transport infrastructure projects using the public-private partnership were analyzed, resulting in a list of 20 (10 Australian and 10 Canadian) advanced transport projects, reflecting their key aspects and benefits from implementation. By the results of the study were offered suggestions for optimizing the further development of public-private partnership. These suggestions are especially relevant for countries where public-private partnerships are at an early stage of development. The recommendations have also been offered for the development of national public-private partnership, with the purpose of post-war restoration of the national transport sector, taking into account the specifics of its infrastructure application in developed countries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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