MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Change Orders Impact on Labor Productivity

2005· article· en· W2023346663 on OpenAlexaffabout
Osama Moselhi, Ihab Assem, Khaled El‐Rayes

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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

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 designObservational
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

Citations145
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Construction Engineering and ManagementSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207