Fuzzy Contingency Determinator<sup>&#x00A9;</sup> a fuzzy arithmetic-based risk analysis tool for construction projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Construction companies always try to employ practical tools to assess risks and determine project contingency, yet the uncertain nature of risk makes it difficult to ensure that the assessment process is accurate or the agreed-upon project contingency is sufficient to deal with such uncertainty. This paper introduces a novel contingency determination procedure that employs fuzzy arithmetic in carrying out its computational steps. Fuzzy linguistic scales are used in this procedure to help experts assess the probability and impact of events using linguistic terms that are described by fuzzy numbers instead of inaccurate, single crisp values. The introduction of fuzzy logic helps experts use their own judgment-rather than relying on historical data-in determining contingency that deals with the shortcomings of applying the probabilistic risk analysis approaches in the absence of historical risk data. The paper also illustrates a new user-friendly software tool, namely, Fuzzy Contingency Determinator, which has been developed to carry out the steps of the procedure. The main contributions of this paper are (1) the introduction of a new contingency determination procedure, based on fuzzy logic, which can handle the subjective uncertainty of experts in assessing critical events leading to risk and opportunity and in determining contingency, and (2) the implementation of the procedure using a simple and user-friendly software tool.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".