PRACTICAS PARA EVALUAR LA CALIDAD DE INFRAESTRUCTURA CARRETERA DE CUOTA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El presente trabajo de investigacion da a conocer un estudio comparativo internacional sobre las mejores practicas en materia de evaluacion de la calidad ofrecida por la infraestructura de carreteras de cuota en Mexico y algunos paises de interes. Primeramente se identifican los criterios de evaluacion de paises como Canada, Espana, Colombia, Chile, entre otros, seguido de los criterios de evaluacion utilizados en Mexico. Los principales elementos evaluados son: indices de siniestralidad (accidentalidad, mortalidad y morbilidad), indice de rugosidad internacional (IRI), profundidad de rodera (PR), calificacion de la corona, drenaje, derecho de via, senalamiento vertical y senalamiento horizontal, y la calificacion de los usuarios a traves de encuestas de servicio. Dichos criterios se aplican posteriormente a las condiciones particulares de algunas carreteras mexicanas de cuota importantes, centrandose en tres ejes principales: Mexico-Irapuato, Mexico-Veracruz y Mexico-Acapulco. La comparativa de criterios hizo posible evaluar las condiciones de calidad de dichos ejes desde la perspectiva nacional e internacional, permitiendo generar las recomendaciones pertinentes. Se presentan figuras y tablas, que contienen algunos resultados que fueron obtenidos de estadisticas de accidentes en carreteras federales, asi como conclusiones y recomendaciones. Abstract : This research study presents an international comparative study of best practices on evaluation of the quality offered by toll roads, in Mexico and some countries of interest. First, the evaluation criteria used in countries like Canada, Spain, Colombia, Chile, among others, are presented, as well as the evaluation criteria used in Mexico. The main elements considered are: accident rates (accidents, mortality and morbidity), international roughness index (IRI), rut depth (RD), rating of the roadway, drainage, right of way, vertical and horizontal signals, and the quality surveys applied to the users. These criteria were applied to the particular conditions of the some important Mexican toll roads, focusing on the three main corridors: Mexico-Irapuato, Mexico-Veracruz and Mexico-Acapulco. The criteria comparison makes it possible to evaluate the quality conditions of these corridors from a national and an international perspective, allowing recommendations to be generated.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".