A novel solution for construction on-site communication – the information booth
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent study on construction productivity improvement at the University of Calgary revealed the direct tool time (working time) of Alberta’s commercial construction to be about 51%. This study exposed inadequate communication and unavailability of required information as the main causes for a relatively lower tool time. Use of information technology (IT) to overcome widely visible communication issues was extremely limited at the construction site level. Construction companies’ hesitation to adopt new technologies was well noted whereas construction workers expressed their willingness and ability to use IT at the site level. The objective of this paper is to discuss the concept and the application of a novel communication tool (called an information booth) developed and pilot tested at a construction project. The concept and the technology presented in this paper have been tested at an actual construction project resulting in improvements in construction productivity, worker satisfaction, and efficiency. This paper also elaborates the rationale for a new technological framework (and the information booth), barriers for technology implementation, research objectives, methodology, and data analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it