MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Change Orders Impact on Labor Productivity

2005· article· en· W2023346663 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Construction Engineering and Management · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNational Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency
KeywordsProductivityChange orderField (mathematics)Computer scienceWork (physics)Artificial neural networkOperations researchIndustrial engineeringEngineeringEconomicsSystems engineeringProject managementEconomic growthArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a study conducted to investigate the impact of change orders on construction productivity and introduces a new neural network model for quantifying this impact. The study is based on a comprehensive literature review and a field investigation of projects constructed in Canada and the USA. The field investigation was carried out over a 6-month period and encompassed 33 actual cases of work packages and contracts. Factors contributing to the adverse effects of change orders on labor productivity are identified and a model presented earlier is expanded to account primarily for the timing of change orders, among other factors. The developed model, as well as four models developed by others, have been incorporated in a prototype software system to estimate the loss of labor productivity due to change orders. A numerical example is presented to demonstrate the use of the developed model, and illustrate its capabilities.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.197 · 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