MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cost Optimization in Projects with Repetitive Nonserial Activities

2001· article· en· W2105760447 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

VenueJournal of Construction Engineering and Management · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicResource-Constrained Project Scheduling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCrewScheduling (production processes)Operations researchNoveltyTotal costSoftwareReliability engineeringEngineeringOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A practical model for scheduling and cost optimization of repetitive projects is proposed in this paper. The model objective is to minimize total construction cost comprising direct cost, indirect cost, interruption cost, as well as incentives and liquidated damages. The novelty of this model stems from four main aspects: (1) it is based on full integration of the critical path and the line of balance methodologies, thus considering crew synchronization and work continuity among nonserial activities; (2) it performs time-cost trade-off analysis considering a specified deadline and alternative construction methods with associated time, cost, and crew options; (3) it is developed as a spreadsheet template that is transparent and easy to use; and (4) it utilizes a nontraditional optimization technique, genetic algorithms, to determine the optimum combination of construction methods, number of crews, and interruptions for each repetitive activity. To automate the model, macroprograms were developed to integrate it with commercial scheduling software. Details of the model are presented, and an example project is used to demonstrate its benefits.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.253 · 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