MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122808396 · doi:10.1061/41109(373)68

e-Society: A Community Engagement Framework for Construction Projects

2010· article· en· W2122808396 on OpenAlexaff
Sherif Kinawy, Tamer E. El-Diraby

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Cities and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityInformation and Communications TechnologyKnowledge managementProcess (computing)Smart cityBusinessProcess managementComputer scienceWorld Wide WebInternet of Things

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A majority of construction projects often have a significant impact on the surrounding neighbourhoods and the environment at large. In city scale infrastructure projects, this impact can be detrimental to project success. The affected populations often have concerns and more importantly local knowledge relevant to the project. Capturing and integrating this feedback enhances project sustainability. This integration is a feature of smart city initiatives that have increased collaboration between regulatory bodies and project planners. However, the community has not been able to effectively engage in this process. Accordingly there is a need to facilitate two-way communication to promote community involvement beyond the capabilities of a smart city; this will be achieved through e-Society. An e-Society boosts citywide sustainability by contributing to an expanding pool of knowledge. This research investigates the use of semantic and social web technologies and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) to facilitate public engagement in construction projects. The proposed framework features a core ontological model that is integrated with web-based middleware. It will contribute to the sustainability of construction projects through enhanced two-way communication and enriched public participation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Cities and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207