MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W796242764

FROM ROAD CONDITION DATA COLLECTION TO EFFECTIVE MAINTENANCE DECISION MAKING: SASKATCHEWAN HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION APPROACH

2003· article· en· W796242764 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Z Lazic

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData collectionTransport engineeringPavement managementAsset managementProfiling (computer programming)Data collection systemComputer scienceOperations researchEngineeringBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An effective road maintenance program requires that road authorities strategically target their investment to those roads that provide the most benefits in return. The main goal is to determine maintenance strategies that minimize the long-term costs of preserving the road network in a desired condition. This process begins by obtaining adequate information about the road network being analyzed so that the right decisions can be made at the right time. Saskatchewan Highways and Transportation (SHT) collects various road condition data either by using an automated data collection system or by manually rating the road network. The SHT automated data collection system consists of the longitudinal profiling subsystem, transverse profiling subsystem and digital video distress collection subsystem. Collected road condition data is then post processed and stored in the centralized database to be later analyzed in the SHT Asset Management System that is concerned with optimizing available funding and providing most benefits for the entire road network. The primary goal of this paper is to describe the road condition data collection process in Saskatchewan and how obtained data is then used to derive an effective road maintenance strategy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207