MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

System of Multiple ANNs for Online Planning of Numerous Building Improvements

2008· article· en· W2050969245 on OpenAlexaff
Saied Yousefi, Tarek Hegazy, Renato A. C. Capuruço, Mohamed Attalla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Construction Engineering and Management · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Task (project management)Operations researchDuration (music)Artificial neural networkResource allocationResource (disambiguation)Artificial intelligenceOperations managementEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aging infrastructure in North America and worldwide mandates large investments in repair and improvement (R&I) activities. For organizations that own many assets, managing a large number of R&I activities is not a simple task and requires accurate estimating and scheduling so that proper budgeting and resource allocation decisions can be made. To support these decisions, this paper introduces a Web-based system that estimates the cost and duration of a user-requested R&I activity and provides alternative schedules based on resource availability. For estimating, the Web-based system hosts 32 artificial neural networks (ANNs), trained on actual historical data, for 32 common R&I activities in building projects. Each ANN incorporates a sensitivity analysis to consider the uncertainty in the input parameters on the estimate, and is linked to a central scheduling algorithm for resource allocation based on a first-come first-serve basis. The automated system helps practitioners in planning numerous R&I requests with least time, cost, and paper work. Details on system development are provided in this paper along with perceived benefits and the opinion of users on its performance.

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 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 score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Construction Engineering and ManagementSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207