MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Critical Path Segments Scheduling Technique

2010· article· en· W2135181737 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 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical path methodComputer sciencePath (computing)Scheduling (production processes)Computer networkOperations managementEngineeringEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the critical path method (CPM) has been useful for scheduling construction projects, years of practice and research have highlighted serious drawbacks that hinder its use as a decision support tool. This paper argues that many of CPM drawbacks stem from the rough level of detail at which the analysis is conducted, where activities’ durations are considered as continuous blocks of time. The paper thus proposes a new critical path segments (CPS) mechanism with a finer level of granularity by decomposing the duration of each activity into separate time segments. Three cases are used to prove the benefits of using separate time segments in avoiding complex network relationships, accurately identifying all critical path fluctuation, better allocation of limited resources, avoiding multiple-calendar problems, and accurate analysis of project delays. The paper discusses the proposed CPS mechanism and comments on several issues related to its calculation complexity, its impact on existing procedures, and future extensions. This research is more beneficial to researchers and has the potential to revolutionize scheduling computations to resolve CPM drawbacks.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.191 · 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