Integrating Automated Data Acquisition Technologies for Progress Reporting of Construction Projects
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
Integrating Automated Data Acquisition Technologies for Progress Reporting of Construction Projects Samir El-Omari, Osama Moselhi Pages 86-94 (2009 Proceedings of the 26th ISARC, Austin, USA, ISBN 978-0-578-02312-0, ISSN 2413-5844) Abstract: Controlling construction projects necessitates controlling their time and cost in an effort to meet the planned targets. Management needs timely data that represent the status of the project to take corrective actions, if needed. This paper presents a control model that integrates different automated data acquisition technology to collect data from construction sites required for progress measurement purposes. Current automated data acquisition technologies are described, and their suitability for use in tracking and controlling construction activities is assessed. This includes bar coding, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) 3D laser scanning, photogrammetry, multimedia, and pen-based computers. The user can move with a tablet PC in the construction site and record, take snapshots and also hand written comments about activities on site. The proposed cost/schedule control model Integrates with the automated data acquisition technologies, a planning and scheduling software system, a relational database, and AutoCAD to generate progress reports that can assist project management teams in decision making. Keywords: 3D laser scanning, photogrammetry, RFID, Tablet PC, Bar Coding progress reporting, data acquisition, automation DOI: https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2009/0048 Download fulltext Download BibTex Download Endnote (RIS) TeX Import to Mendeley
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