Buildability factors affecting formwork labour productivity of building floors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several factors affect labour productivity, but buildability is one of the most important. A thorough investigation of the literature, however, revealed a dearth of research into the effect of buildability on labour productivity of in situ reinforced concrete construction. Therefore, this research focuses on quantifying the effects and relative influence of the variability of beam sizes, repetition of floor layout, floor area, average slab panel area, intersection of beams, beam–floor area ratio, and percentage of curved beams and nonrectangular slab panels on formwork labour productivity of building floors. Apart from the variability of beam sizes, buildability factors investigated are found to have significant effects on formwork labour productivity, confirming the importance of applying the concepts of rationalization, standardization, and repetition to the design stage of building projects. The findings can be used to provide designers with feedback on how well their designs consider the requirements of buildability principles and the consequences of their decisions on the labour efficiency of the formwork operation. On the other hand, the depicted patterns of results may further provide guidance to construction managers for effective activity planning and efficient labour utilization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".