Estimating productivity of earthmoving operations using spatial technologies<sup>1</sup>This paper is one of a selection of papers in this Special Issue on Construction Engineering and Management.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an automated method for estimating productivity of earthmoving operations in near-real-time. The developed method utilizes Global Positioning System (GPS) and Google Earth to extract the data needed to perform the estimation process. A GPS device is mounted on a hauling unit to capture the spatial data along designated hauling roads for the project. The variations in the captured cycle times were used to model the uncertainty associated with the operation involved. This was carried out by automated classification, data fitting, and computer simulation. The automated classification is applied through a spreadsheet application that classifies GPS data and identifies, accordingly, durations of different activities in each cycle using spatial coordinates and directions captured by GPS and recorded on its receiver. The data fitting was carried out using commercially available software to generate the probability distribution functions used in the simulation software “Extend V.6”. The simulation was utilized to balance the production of an excavator with that of the hauling units. A spreadsheet application was developed to perform the calculations. An example of an actual project was analyzed to demonstrate the use of the developed method and illustrates its essential features. The analyzed case study demonstrates how the proposed method can assist project managers in taking corrective actions based on the near-real-time actual data captured and processed to estimate productivity of the operations involved.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".