Predicting Cost Deviation in Reconstruction Projects: Artificial Neural Networks versus Regression
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the challenging environment of reconstruction projects and describes the development of a predictive model of cost deviation in such high-risk projects. Based on a survey of construction professionals, information was obtained on the reasons behind cost overruns and poor quality from 50 reconstruction projects. For each project, the specific techniques used for project control were reported along with the actual cost deviation from planned values. Two indicators of cost deviation are used in this study: cost overrun to the owner, and the cost of rework to the contractor. Based on the information obtained, 36 factors were identified as having direct impact on the cost performance of reconstruction projects. Two techniques were then used to develop models for predicting cost deviation: statistical analysis, and artificial neural networks (ANNs). While both models had similar accuracy, the ANN model is more sensitive to a larger number of variables. Overall, this study contributes to a better understanding of the reasons for cost deviation in reconstruction projects and provides a decision support tool to quantify that deviation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it