MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W565797863

Chief Peguis Trail - P3 Construction

2012· article· en· W565797863 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
B Biglow, G Coolidge

Bibliographic record

Venue2012 CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION OF THE TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF CANADA - TRANSPORTATION: INNOVATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderground infrastructure and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBermScheduleEngineeringCulvertConstruction managementTransport engineeringCivil engineeringTrack (disk drive)Design speedBridge (graph theory)Plan (archaeology)Computer scienceGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A case study of the Design and Construction of the Chief Peguis Trail Extension Project in Winnipeg, Manitoba. This project was designed and constructed as a Private-Public-Partnership (P3) and the Contractor is responsible for maintenance for the next 30 years. The total time from award of the P3 contract to commissioning and opening the roadway was 15 months, approximately one year ahead of schedule. This fast-track schedule led to numerous challenges in staging and construction methods, particularly with numerous activities occurring simultaneously. The project length of 3.7 km included a 4-lane arterial divided roadway with a fly-over roadway grade separation, sewer and water relocations, new land drainage piping, a pedestrian bridge, noise attenuation walls, multi-use paths, berms and three new intersections. Throughout the design and construction, decisions were made based on construction efficiency while also considering life cycle cost and maintenance costs. Because of the fast-track schedule and because the P3 Contractor will be maintaining the roadway, the design and construction process was very dynamic, compared to a traditional Design- Bid-Build project. (A) For the covering abstract of this conference see ITRD number E201211RT334E.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.177 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2012 CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION OF THE TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF CANADA - TRANSPORTATION: INNOVATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIESSame topicUnderground infrastructure and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207