MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W624357769

CITY IMPLEMENTS CONTINUOUS PROCESS IMPROVEMENT IN ROADWAYS SECTION

2003· article· en· W624357769 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jane Jorgenson, R J Gerke

Bibliographic record

VenueTHE APWA REPORTER · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransport engineeringProcess (computing)Work (physics)Consistency (knowledge bases)Session (web analytics)Work zoneEngineeringComputer scienceOperations management
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the implementation of a continuous process improvement methodology by the Roadways Branch of the City of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. It focuses on the critical success factors and the major initiatives of the project. The project involved three primary processes: 1) developing a business process for improving work methods; 2) validating the process using MMS data from the City of Saskatoon; and, 3) preparing a Continuous Process Improvement Training Packing and training session using actual city data. Factors affecting the selection of an activity include its relative cost, consistency between crews in performing an activity, the impact that the activity has on the program, and the time since the activity was last reviewed. Four work activities were studied using the controlled continual improvement process and recommendations were then developed and presented to city officials. The activities included: Concrete sidewalk replacements; pothole patching; snow loading and removal; and, maintenance of utility costs.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTHE APWA REPORTERSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207