MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1910643221 · doi:10.5539/mas.v9n12p12

Application of Social Network Analysis for Analyzing the Relationships between Root and Direct Causes of Defects

2015· article· en· W1910643221 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chantelle Van Den Brink, Sang Won Han

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderground infrastructure and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaMinistry of Science, ICT and Future PlanningNational Research Foundation
KeywordsRoot (linguistics)Root cause analysisCentralityRoot causeComputer scienceAdjacency listSocial network analysisData miningStatisticsMathematicsAlgorithmForensic engineeringReliability engineeringWorld Wide WebEngineeringLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="zhengwen">This paper addresses the application of social network analysis (SNA) in understanding and representing the relationships between the root and direct causes of defects. The root and direct causes of construction defects were identified through extensive literature review, and the thoroughness of the identified causes was confirmed by examining 91 non-conformance reports. The SNA software UCINET was used to visually map the links between the direct and root causes for identifying the root causes that accounted for the majority of direct causes and defects. A measure of centrality and adjacency indicated that the root cause Constructor Error/Omission was directly linked to seven of the ten identified direct causes. It was also determined that eliminating this root cause together with Transportation Error would reduce the number of defects by 90%. Since the root causes responsible for the majority of direct causes as well as the largest number of defects could be identified using SNA, it is concluded that SNA is a valuable tool for recognizing where resources should be employed for the elimination of defects.</p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicUnderground infrastructure and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207