Lessons from the handling of alternatives in two international bridge projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The handling of alternatives in two international projects - the Detroit River International Crossing (Canada-USA) and the Oresund Bridge (Sweden-Denmark) – is compared and analysed. In impact assessment, and in planning, alternatives play an important role. They entail the formulation of different ways to reach a predetermined goal of a project or plan. They can be used to justify the main alternative, or to question the predetermined goals of an endeavour. Large-scale infrastructure projects are often politically and financially sensitive and have significant environmental and societal impacts. It is therefore interesting to investigate the handling of alternatives in these case-studies – in impact assessment and in planning – to analyse the use of alternatives. In the two projects, both of which are fixed links across a body of water and an international boundary, two similar cases in different jurisdictions and systems are analysed. Useful comparisons can be made about why differences in the handling of alternatives occur and lessons can be learnt about what matters and contributes to a “more rational” handling of alternatives in impact assessment; whether it be legislative systems, individual process actors or technical skills.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".