Comparative Study of Price Variations of Basic Civil Engineering Construction Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study of varying prices of basic civil engineering construction materials was undertaken. The basic materials considered were two varieties of cement, three types of sand, and different sizes of two types of timber. Prices of these construction materials were collected from local Contractors in Oshogbo region over a period of twenty seven months. The period considered was from January 2010 to March 2012. Variation pattern in the prices was studied on monthly basis. Results indicate that prices of all the basic construction materials follow an annual cyclic pattern. Prices of the two brands of Cement were the same except at months 12, 23 and 24. The prices are stable from April to August of each year (months 4-8, and 16-20). During these periods the price of this material increased by 13.3% from ?1,500.00 in 2010 to ?1,700.00 in 2011. There were two rises per annum in the prices of sand. The first rise occurred in March and the second in the following November for sharp and fine sands. Timber prices are relatively stable within 5% variability during the months of November – March and December – March respectively for hardwood and whitewood except types H4 and W1. H4 and W1 prices were the same and they followed the same trend. The trends presented by types H4 and H5, which are same size but different species, are similar, indicating that hardwood specie is not a factor in the price variation of timbers. It can generally be concluded that the prices of the basic construction materials will stabilize during the months of April to August of every year. Although construction activities are light every January, January prices keep increasing from year to year.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".