MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012136844 · doi:10.1139/l04-073

Construction prequalification using data envelopment analysis

2005· article· en· W2012136844 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsData envelopment analysisEnvelopmentProcess (computing)EngineeringKey (lock)Operations managementComputer scienceOperations researchMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contractor prequalification is essential in most construction projects, and the process has been performed by many different methods in practice. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) had been recognized as a useful technique to prequalify contractors by assigning relative efficiency scores. Data envelopment analysis, however, usually requires a large amount of data and has not been fully developed to achieve reliable results. An enhanced contractor prequalification model using DEA was developed together with a methodology for determining a "practical frontier" of best contractors. The established practical frontier can be used as a regional performance standard for the owner in prequalification and as improvement guidelines for contractors.Key words: contractor prequalification, construction engineering, data envelopment analysis, practical frontier.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.230 · 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