ANALYSIS OF COSTS AND PRICES OF BUILDING REHABILITATION WORK IN FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, MINNA, NIGERIA USING IN-HOUSE CONSULTANTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper is a detailed analysis of costs and prices of rehabilitation work carried out on some of the Federal University of Technology, Minna buildings on two of its campuses in the last quarter of 2006. Lecturers of the built-environment faculties were the supervising consultants. The aim was to verify the merits of using in-house consultants in place of the conventional ones. Method used in data collection was historical- collecting from the archives of the Task-force (consultants) and percentages was the analytical tool employed. Figures of savings made for the client by the consultants from both the pre-contract estimates and the various contractors’ variation claims were collated and analyzed. It was discovered that savings of between 9 and 43 percents were made on the cost of each of the contracts (lots), culminating in savings of about N9 million. The normal consultancy fee was waived for a flat-rate allowance The further patronage of this type of in-house consultants was recommended for tertiary institutions’ infrastructural facilities rehabilitation work.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".