MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Review of Contemporary Construction Procurement Practices

2013· article· en· W2022168955 on OpenAlexaff
Rajeev Ruparathna, Kasun Hewage

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management in Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPublic Procurement and Policy
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcurementProcess managementRequest for proposalStandardizationConstruction industryProcess (computing)BusinessConstruction managementChief procurement officerEngineering managementKnowledge managementEngineeringConstruction engineeringComputer scienceMarketingCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Procurement is a key process in a construction project that creates and manages contacts. Procurement activities span from identification of requirements to project closeout, making it a perfect mode for integrating organizational strategic directions. Lately, the strategic importance of procurement has been widely acknowledged by academics as well as industry professionals. Construction procurement is a complex process with a large number of available options and directions. Ad hoc statistics show that modern initiatives such as sustainability, life-cycle costing, and standardization are getting integrated with procurement. However, there is no unified view in the construction industry on procurement as a project process. This paper presents a comprehensive review of traditional and emerging procurement practices in the construction industry. The current procurement practices are analyzed by separating into three segments; processes, methods, and policies. Furthermore, strengths and weaknesses of the traditional procurement methods are reviewed in detail. As the final section, contemporary developments in construction procurement are investigated. This article consolidates detailed knowledge of construction procurement that is identified as a knowledge gap in the literature.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.025
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations130
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management in EngineeringSame topicPublic Procurement and PolicyFrench-language works237,207