MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W605019134 · doi:10.17226/14270

Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making

2009· book· en· W605019134 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael J. Markow, William A. Hyman

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Academies Press eBooks · 2009
Typebook
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Agency (philosophy)EngineeringTransport engineeringConstruction engineeringBusinessCivil engineeringSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study gathers information on current practices that senior managers at transportation agencies use to make network-level decisions on resource allocations for their bridge programs. In particular, the study explores how agency bridge management systems are employed in this process. Information was gathered through a review of literature on U.S. and international bridge management, a survey of U.S. and Canadian transportation agencies, and 15 in-depth interviews with state department of transportation executive and bridge managers.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.004

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations35
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Academies Press eBooksSame topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207