The Front-end of Large Public Projects : Paradoxes and Ways Ahead
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Large public projects represent major complex investment and whilst there has been much written about how to develop, manage and deliver such projects, practice still does not match up with expectations. In this book, researchers from the Norwegian Concept Research Programme explore the paradoxes between theory and practice in collaboration with experts in the field of project governance. </p><p>This book delves into the reality of large public projects, to show how they can be managed effectively and efficiently, recognising the realities of their context. It offers a range of practical conclusions as to the paradoxes of the governance and management of public projects. The international spectrum of authors draw their examples from the UK, Norway, Canada, France, Australia and the Netherlands. </p><p>Bridging the gap between research, theory and practice, this book will benefit academics and researchers in the field of project management and corporate governance as well as those in the practice of public project governance, civil servants and industry practitioners.</p>
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.001 |
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".