Contractor default prediction model for surety bonding<sup>1</sup>This paper is one of a selection of papers in this Special Issue on Construction Engineering and Management.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contractor default is one of the major risks that threaten a project’s success in the construction industry. Previous studies have focused mainly on evaluation of the contractor’s financial aspects to predict contractor default. There remains a need for a comprehensive model that has the ability to incorporate the evaluation of all the project aspects, project team, contractual risks, and project management evaluation criteria to predict the possibility of a contractor’s default on a specific construction project. This paper presents a contractor default prediction model (CDPM) from the surety bonding perspective that incorporates these criteria and uses a fuzzy inference system for reasoning. The CDPM provides a more objective, structured, and comprehensive approach for contractor default prediction for surety practitioners, project owners, and for self-assessment by contractors to reduce the risk of contractor default. The multi-attribute utility function was used to develop a group consensus system (GCS) to aggregate the participating experts’ opinions to build the CDPM. The accuracy of the GCS was found to be 91.1%. A novel approach for fuzzy rule base development is applied to develop the rule base for the CDPM. The CDPM was validated using 30 contractor default prediction cases, and the accuracy was found to be 86.5%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".