Construction process technologies: a meta-analysis of Canadian research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As one component of a broader initiative to develop a roadmap for innovation in process technologies throughout the Canadian construction industry, a survey and meta-analysis of current research and developmental activity was conducted. Twenty-two researchers were surveyed, resulting in an inventory of more than 100 research project descriptions. This dataset was used to develop a series of roadmaps of the current research and development activity. The results show a number of high-quality research initiatives underway spanning a wide range of application areas, technologies, and innovation process phases. The recommendations focus primarily on the need to continue the roadmapping process. The study has identified some of the issues that should be addressed and provided elements of the framework for ongoing strategic planning — yet it provides only a modest incremental step toward establishing overall mechanisms to harness the ongoing research activity to drive effectively the innovation process throughout the Canadian construction industry.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.091 | 0.190 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.048 | 0.074 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".