MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessing the Market Potential for Housing Construction Products in Mexico

2012· article· en· W2106623194 on OpenAlexaff
I. Cariaga, Tamer E. El-Diraby

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Construction Engineering and Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBP (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexBusinessProduct (mathematics)GlobalizationWork (physics)Supply chainMarket analysisIndustrial organizationService (business)Process (computing)MarketingEnvironmental economicsEngineeringEconomicsFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies on international construction activities tend to focus on project contracting or exporting of raw material (such as cement or steel). However, globalization and free-trade agreements are creating new opportunities for international trade in manufactured housing products (such as roofing systems and other components). The aim of this work is to understand the factors that impact the potential profitability of housing construction products in international markets and develop a process for profitability assessment. This was done in a test market (the Mexican market) through reviewing pertinent literature in conjunction with conducting interviews with experts in this domain. The analysis shows that six major processes have to be undertaken: (1) analysis of market conditions (preventure analysis); (2) assessing competencies; (3) evaluation of product and service; (4) analysis of proper distribution channels (supply chain); (5) evaluation of marketing strategies; and (6) analysis of cost-price-value relationship. A set of factors and best practices has been identified to support and guide the conduct of each process.

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 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)0.004
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.314
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Construction Engineering and ManagementSame topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207