MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007835401 · doi:10.1139/l10-047

Enhancing construction project supply chains and performance evaluation methods: a case study of a bridge construction project

2010· article· en· W2007835401 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nai-Hsin Pan, Yung-Yu Lin, Nang-Fei Pan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Supply Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupply chainBridge (graph theory)Computer scienceSupply chain managementProcess managementSystems engineeringBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Construction supply chain management (cSCM) requires planning such that construction stages and logistics are coordinated and integrated to reduce costs, improve productivity, and generate a win–win situation for different parties. The supply chain operations reference (SCOR), which has been widely applied in other industries, is a standardized operational modeling methodology for analyzing supply chain processes. This study considers construction industry characteristics in applying the SCOR model to develop a dynamic cSCM model using computer simulation. Furthermore, this study developed a novel cSCM performance evaluation method using the SCOR method to evaluate cSCM performance and identify and solve cSCM problems. This study uses a bridge construction project as a case study, which determines the relationships among supply chain participants to enhance communication efficiency and identify problems related to materials management. The case study results demonstrate that the proposed hybrid modeling methodology helps construction supply chain participants identify their roles and communicate easily, helps project managers identify bottlenecks in a supply chain, and significantly improves cSCM performance.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicQuality and Supply ManagementFrench-language works237,207