MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7051752150

A pavement maintenance management system designed for the city of W nnipeg

2007· other· en· W7051752150 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2007
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Plasma Interactions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPavement managementPreventive maintenanceMaintenance actionsHighway maintenanceRanking (information retrieval)Planned maintenanceComputerized maintenance management systemPavement engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large portion of the regional street network in Winnipeg is comprised of Portland Cement Concrete pavements--pavements which are susceptible to damage caused by freeze-thaw cycles. Due to the high number of freeze-thaw cycles in Winnipeg, pavement maintenance is therefore important. The goal of this project is to develop a method of selecting effective and efficient pavement maintenance strategies. There are two elements of pavement maintenance management, (1) reactive, (2) proactive. The reactive method proposed in this report invokes using a maintenance activity assignment procedure that is dependent on human experience, to develop rules which are used to assign maintenance treatments to pavements based on condition. The proactive technique proposed involves assessing the probability that the pavement will deteriorate one condition category in one analysis period, and recommending a long-term maintenance strategy based on that probability and background information. Once the long-term strategy is recommended, the individual life-cycle maintenance strategies for each pavement are developed. Using a form of life-cycle cost analysis, the lowest cost alternatives are chosen. Once all of the pavements being considered have a life-cycle maintenance strategy then the pavements are ranked in order of importance. This is done so that the highest ranking pavements are funded until the budget is exhausted. Maintenance on lower-ranking projects is deferred until sufficient funding can be obtained. The system depends on a level of funding that has not been available to maintenance engineers and planners in recent years.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.158 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)Same topicLaser-Plasma Interactions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207