Bibliographic record
Abstract
One could say the Dutch building industry is an inefficient industry. Every year almost ten percent of the turnover of Dutch construction firms is wasted by unnecessary mistakes and poor collaboration (USP, 2012). Integrating and managing information more actively and forcing all stakeholders to collaborate during the life cycle of a building could be an adequate and effective way to reduce these problems. One way of doing this is Building Information Modelling (BIM). BIM is a buzzword, and therefore the definition of BIM from BuildingSmart (formerly known as IAI), a platform for knowledge exchange regarding BIM (BuildingSmart, 2012) is taken as a guideline. BuildingSmart provides. BuildingSmart’s definition of BIM runs as follows: “Building Information Modelling is a business process for generating and leveraging building data to design, construct and operate the building during its lifecycle. BIM allows all stakeholders to have access to the same information at the same time through interoperability between technology platforms”. Based on an explorative literature research, five 2013 observations on BIM are addressed: Building owners are reluctant to use BIM during the whole lifecycle of a building; Public authorities are experimenting with BIM on construction projects; Other countries and industries are ahead of the Dutch construction industry in the use of BIM; The resistance of non-BIM users is increasing; BIM is mainly restricted to the stages of design and realisation, and not to the operations phase. From these observations it becomes clear that BIM is attracting more attention in the Dutch building industry. BIM, however, is mainly used in the stages of the building process up to realization. This is why the added value of BIM for design and engineering firms is extensively known. Owners and operators have thus far failed to see the added value of BIM for themselves. As initiators of the building process, owners and operators remain reluctant in their use of BIM during the whole life cycle. This seems to have become a barrier for the wide use of BIM in the Netherlands. To deal with this barrier, this research conducts a broad analysis of the currently deployed information management by owners during the operations phase. Based on the conclusions of the current information management the added value of BIM can be explored. Samenvatting Jaarlijks worden er in de Nederlandse bouw- en vastgoedsector vele miljoenen euro’s, gemiddeld 10 procent van de bouwomzet, verspild door onnodige fouten en gebrekkige samenwerking (USP, 2012). Het actief integreren en beheren van informatie e?n partijen dwingen tot samenwerking gedurende de gehele levenscyclus van een bouwwerk lijkt een goede methode om deze problemen te verhelpen. Een concrete manier voor het verzamelen en integreren van informatie is Building Information Modeling (BIM). Uit een orie?nterende literatuurstudie volgt dat BIM terrein wint in de bouw- en vastgoedsector. BIM wordt daarbij voornamelijk toegepast als een middel in de fases tot en met de realisatiefase, waardoor de meerwaarde voor de ontwerpende en bouwende partijen al uitgebreid belicht is. Opdrachtgevers zien de meerwaarde van BIM echter nog niet in. Opdrachtgevers, als initiator van het proces, zijn hierdoor terughoudend in het gebruiken of voorschrijven van BIM over de gehele levenscyclus van een bouwwerk. Dit lijkt een barrie?re te vormen voor de toepassing van BIM. Het onderzoek is verdeeld over twee delen: een analyse en een ontwerp. Dit met als doel om op basis van een analyse van het huidige informatiemanagement tot een verkenning van de toegevoegde waarde van BIM in de beheerfase voor opdrachtgevers te komen. In een ontwerp is dit vervolgens uitgewerkt tot een concreet model voor BIM in de beheerfase.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.163 | 0.098 |
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".