MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067503067 · doi:10.3763/aedm.2010.idds1

Challenges for Integrated Design and Delivery Solutions

2010· article· en· W2067503067 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Owen, Robert Amor, Mark E Palmer, John Dickinson, C. B. Tatum, Abdul Samad Kazi, M. Prins, Arto Kiviniemi, Bill East

Bibliographic record

VenueArchitectural Engineering and Design Management · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteroperabilityProcess (computing)Bridge (graph theory)Knowledge managementWorkforceEngineeringProcess managementIntegrated project deliveryEngineering managementIsolation (microbiology)Systems engineeringProject managementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new approach of integrated design and delivery solutions (IDDS) aims to radically improve the performance of the construction industries. IDDS builds upon recent trends in the construction industries that have seen the widespread adoption of technologies such as building information modelling (BIM) and innovative processes such as integrated project delivery. However, these innovations are seen to develop in isolation, with little consideration of the overarching interactions between people, process and technology. The IDDS approach is holistic in that it recognizes that it is only through a combination of initiatives such as skill development, process re-engineering, responsive information technology, enhanced interoperability and integrating knowledge management, among others, that radical change can be achieved. To implement IDDS requires step changes in many project aspects, and this gap between current performance and that required for IDDS is highlighted. The research required to bridge the gaps is identified in four major aspects of collaborative processes, workforce skills, integrated information and knowledge management.

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)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0210.023
Open science0.0070.016
Research integrity0.0130.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations109
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchitectural Engineering and Design ManagementSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207