MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995059863 · doi:10.1108/ecam-03-2014-0039

Contingency modelling for construction projects using fuzzy-set theory

2015· article· en· W1995059863 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Salah, Osama Moselhi

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Construction & Architectural Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContingencyFuzzy setSet (abstract data type)OriginalityContingency theoryNoveltyComputer scienceContingency managementOperations researchFuzzy logicManagement scienceEngineeringArtificial intelligenceKnowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a newly developed fuzzy-set based model for estimating, allocating, depleting, and managing contingency fund over the life cycle of construction projects. Design/methodology/approach – Fuzzy set theory is utilized in the design and development of proposed contingency modelling framework to incorporate uncertainties associated with the development phases of construction projects. A set of developed indices, measures, and ratios are introduced to quantify and characterize these uncertainties. The developed framework is designed to incorporate expert opinion and provide user-system interaction. Findings – The results obtained from the application of the developed framework on actual project case not only illustrate its accuracy, but also demonstrate its capabilities for contingency management over life cycle of construction projects. Unlike other methods, the framework provides project managers with structured method for contingency depletion utilizing a set of depletion curves and selection factors. Originality/value – The novelty of the developed framework lies not only in its new developments for contingency estimating but also its modelling for contingency allocation and depletion. It is expected to be of direct value to industry professionals and academics interested in contingency management over the entire life cycle of construction projects. The proposed framework provides management functions and features beyond those generated through Monte Carlo simulation and even those developed using fuzzy set theory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations75
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering Construction & Architectural ManagementSame topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207