MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2242924137

Cash flow optimization and visualization of residence housing for builders

2013· article· en· W2242924137 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hong Li, Hexu Liu, Xiangyu Zhou, Chen Sun, Ka Hou Ngan, Mohamed Al‐Hussein

Bibliographic record

VenueDeakin Research Online (Deakin University) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCash flowCash flow forecastingNet present valueVisualizationComputer scienceDiscounted cash flowCashOperations researchPaymentProcurementFinanceBusinessEngineeringProduction (economics)EconomicsMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cash flow management is widely considered to be a key issue within the construction industry, especially for residential homebuilders. Cash flow in the residential housing industry involves multiple stakeholders, such as lot developers, banks, clients, trades, and builders; usually the builder initiates a complex plan involving lot procurement, construction investment, and housing sales, which has the potential to lead to more profitable solutions for the builder. This research develops a decision support system subject to variable developer and bank payment schedules, and is based on a twofold objective: (1) Maximize cumulative (negative) cash flows, subject to the guaranteed net present value (NPV) for developers and bank. The optimum solutions help builders to stay within the bank overdraft limit and reduce the pressure of cash demands for builders. (2) Maximize builder’s NPV and increase the NPVs of developers and banks as much as possible. With the multi-objective optimization, the win-win optimal solutions serve as negotiation strategies between these stakeholders. The proposed decision making system is highlighted by the application of visualization techniques; two types of visualization techniques, i.e., a combined Excel and add-in and a preliminary augmented Reality (AR), are utilized to illustrate the optimizing process and the optimal solutions, with the cash inflows, outflows, and the net cash flows for different time periods displayed dynamically. A case study based on a project in Edmonton, Canada is utilized to demonstrate the proposed methodology.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDeakin Research Online (Deakin University)Same topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207