MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034348842 · doi:10.1061/41171(401)101

Use of Failure Case Studies in a Construction Planning and Estimating Course

2011· article· en· W2034348842 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2011 · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConstruction Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyllabusEngineeringProcess (computing)Construction engineeringCivil engineering softwareCurriculumConstruction managementEngineering design processStructural failureEngineering ethicsCivil engineeringComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reasons for including failure case studies within the undergraduate engineering curriculum have been made by various authors. Specific cases have been integrated into the syllabi of engineering mechanics, structural analysis, and structural design courses. The case studies used are typically catastrophic structural failures, where failure can be defined as a structural collapse, often with significant loss of life. Many civil engineering undergraduate programs include a course in construction planning and management. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge (BOK) for the 21th Century, Second Edition emphasizes a need for Civil Engineers to understand not only the technical areas of analysis and design, but also more of the project management issues that enable a project to go from design to fruition. Hence, it is likely that more programs will include construction management courses. This paper deals with the integration of failure case studies into a construction planning and estimating course. In addition to structural failures, this course looks at the definition of "failure" from an engineering/construction perspective. It explains that failure includes the inability of an engineered facility to perform as designed. It further opines that failure to be constructed within reasonable time and budgetary constraints falls within the definition of failure. While most students may have the pre-conceived notion that failures are only caused by design deficiencies and perhaps natural hazards, the examples used in this course emphasize how many failures are caused by deficiencies in the design and/or construction process itself. In addition to the use of more typical and catastrophic failure case studies, such as the Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse (Kansas City, Missouri), and the L'Ambiance Plaza Collapse (Bridgeport, Connecticut), the course makes extensive use of the Montreal Olympic Facility design and construction to demonstrate how deficiencies in the design and construction process can lead to extreme constructability issues and exorbitant cost overruns. The author also shows how the inclusion of the case studies addresses some of the more difficult areas to address in the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) evaluation criteria, such as the understanding of the impact of civil and environmental engineering solutions in a global and social context.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.217 · 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