MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W622175996

Applying Context Sensitive Design to the Innovative Development of Major Highway Projects

2004· article· en· W622175996 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jesse Collings

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Principal (computer security)Flexibility (engineering)Consistency (knowledge bases)HeuristicsTask (project management)CredibilityCreativityTransport engineeringEngineeringGeometric designManagement scienceComputer scienceEngineering managementOperations researchSystems engineeringPolitical scienceComputer securityManagementGeographyArtificial intelligenceEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explains how Context Sensitive Design (CSD) is being applied in the development of major Canadian projects requiring the construction and upgrading of arterial corridors. It continues the thesis of the author's paper to the 2002 TAC conference, which dealt with the emerging topic of CSD. This paper explores contemporary road design procedures that address the community context and follow the 1999 TAC Guidelines. These Guidelines allow for flexibility and the use of ranges of geometric parameters (domains) when supported by professional engineering judgment. They permit creativity and initiative as long as all decisions are documented with design heuristics and valid research. In this way, the context of communities, in terms of values and preferences, may be accommodated into road designs. The paper explains how project guidelines are being prepared for new road projects using the TAC Guidelines as their principal reference and explicitly addressing traffic safety. This is done by specifying geometric consistency and crash prediction modelling. These requirements place engineers at the forefront of the design task, mindful of their duties to society and to the likelihood of legal challenge. For the covering abstract of this conference see ITRD number E211395.

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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207