MIIP report: survey on municipal infrastructure assets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Municipal Infrastructure Investment Planning (MIIP) is a three-year project investigating decision support tools for strategic asset management (http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/projects/irc/municipal-infrastructure.html). A defined deliverable for the project is a survey and report on existing levels of maintenance within the participating organizations and within Canadian municipalities. More specifically, the survey should validate the 2% to 4% 'Level of Investment' recommended by some government agencies (NRC US, 1994, 1996). This report addresses these project needs by investigating: (1) the actual and sustainable 'Level of Investment' expenditures for maintenance of municipal infrastructure; (2) the extent of asset management techniques in practice today, and (3) the state of Canada's municipal infrastructure assets. This report presents the results of a survey sent to 545 municipalities across Canada and presents and discusses the responses from 67 Canadian municipal infrastructure asset managers. Included in the number were responses from the federal departments, municipalities and regional municipalities participating in the MIIP project.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".