Assessing MoDOT's Efforts to Provide the Right Transportation Solution [2007]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In their effort to “provide a world-class transportation system that delights our customers,” the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) has developed a Tracker system that assesses performance with tangible results. The set of goals includes the concept of “Fast projects that are of great value,” and an important aspect of this Tracker measure is whether Missourians view MoDOT projects as the right transportation solution. To assess customer satisfaction with MoDOT projects, a mail survey was conducted in fall 2006 by the Institute of Public Policy in the Truman School of Public Affairs at the University of Missouri Columbia. Two waves of the survey were mailed with the first in November and the second in December. Almost 2,900 Missourians returned a valid survey questionnaire so the margin of error for the analysis is slightly smaller than plus or minus two percent.\nThe results show that most Missourians are satisfied with the local MoDOT project chosen for this study. When asked about the specific features of the local project (such as safety, traffic flow, and ease of use), an overwhelming percent express attitudes in agreement with improvements in the roadway. For example, almost half “strongly agreed” and an additional 39% agreed that the “road is now safer” after the project. The lowest percent on the favorable side of any question on a specific feature of the project was the one on less congestion, and yet about 70% either agreed or strongly agreed that the road now has less congestion. Finally, when asked about whether this project was the “right transportation solution,” more than two-thirds said that it was very much worth it, about 17% said somewhat worth it, and about 11% said they were not sure. Less than five percent said “not really worth it” or “not at all.”\n
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".