MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064147366 · doi:10.1139/l07-116

Developing a project knowledge management framework for tunnel construction: lessons learned in Taiwan

2008· article· en· W2064147366 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
H. Ping Tserng, Chin‐Hsiang Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOntologyKnowledge managementBridging (networking)Domain knowledgeDomain (mathematical analysis)Field (mathematics)Knowledge retrievalSet (abstract data type)Knowledge integrationKnowledge engineeringData scienceKnowledge extractionData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge, particularly in the form of experience, can provide a competitive advantage in the construction industry. Knowledge organization (KO) systems developed in the library, information, and computer sciences are excellent for delivering knowledge services. However, it is difficult for these systems to judge how suitable (not just relevant) any of the retrieved knowledge will be in practice. This study puts forward a directional experience ontology (DExOntology) framework, which makes use of KO characteristics to set up problem-topic ontology, but augments the retrieved knowledge documents (KwDocs) in the knowledge bank with additional “orientation” from weighted attributes determined by domain experts, thus bridging the gap between existing KO systems and practical requirements. The goal is a mechanism that delivers knowledge, especially in the domain of practical experience, more efficiently and effectively than simple information retrieval searches. The study finds that the DExOntology framework significantly improves both the relevancy and suitability of the retrieved knowledge, making it a more useful system for construction industry practitioners to use in the field.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicKnowledge Management and SharingFrench-language works237,207