MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W631045022

A Survey of Current State of the Practice for Winter Maintenance of Parking Lots and Sidewalks

2013· article· en· W631045022 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Liping Fu, Raqib Omer, Zara Liaqat

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 92nd Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLife Cycle Costing Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityTransport engineeringField surveyEngineeringField (mathematics)BusinessComputer scienceCivil engineeringMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes results from an online survey conducted to investigate and document the current state of practice concerning various aspects of winter maintenance of parking lots and sidewalks within the province of Ontario, Canada. In particular, the use of different materials, maintenance strategies, latest equipment and hurdles to sustainability were explored. The online survey included a total of 30 questions specifically addressing application rates, materials, types of equipment and preferences towards various maintenance strategies. The information obtained from this research represents a unique compilation of the current standard of practice as described by actual field practitioners in the form of answers to carefully designed questions. From a research perspective, the results from the survey are very useful in explaining material usage patterns and exploring potential areas for improvement. Practitioners in the field can compare their practices to those presented in the survey while equipment and material manufacturers can use the results to improve their products and better serve the need of the industry.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 92nd Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicLife Cycle Costing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207