Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are various methods offered in construction literature for determining the schedule impact resulting from delays and interruptions. Previous scheduling technique makes the assumption that the relationship between time and the number of units produced is linear. Accordingly, progress is assumed to be equally distributed along the activities’ durations. Often this assumption does not reflect the real situation for the progress of construction activities. Some activities are naturally nonlinear and others exhibit nonlinear progress. To insure reality and reasonableness, delay analysis must allow for nonlinear production rates as well as linear production rates in the delayed activities. Therefore, there is a need for a delay analysis method that incorporates the varying rate of production for the delayed activities. This paper proposes a delay analysis method that can rationally apportion the concurrent delay with consideration of the nonlinear production rates of activities in construction projects. A simple case study has been implemented to demonstrate the accuracy and usefulness of the proposed delay analysis method. This research is useful for both researchers and practitioners for the case including the varying productivity due to delays and interruptions and allows transparent and rational analysis on concurrent delay to facilitate claim analysis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".