MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072148912 · doi:10.3141/1761-16

Critical Path Method–Line of Balance Model for Efficient Scheduling of Repetitive Construction Projects

2001· article· en· W2072148912 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicResource-Constrained Project Scheduling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical path methodScheduling (production processes)Computer scienceScheduleOperations researchPipeline transportPath (computing)Industrial engineeringEngineeringSystems engineeringOperations managementComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A general model is presented for efficient scheduling and resource management in construction projects that involve a high degree of repetition, such as highways and pipelines. The proposed model has three main features: ( a) it fully integrates the critical path method for network analysis and the line of balance technique for linear scheduling, ( b) it allows realistic schedule development considering project deadline and resource constraints, and ( c) it incorporates improved schedule presentation that shows crews’ movements along the repetitive units and their detailed work assignments. The detailed formulation of the proposed model is described, and an example application is presented. The proposed model is demonstrated to offer significant advantages as a resource-driven approach. Future extensions to the proposed model are then outlined.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.267
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.236 · 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