A chronographic protocol for modelling 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
The main goal of graphical modelling is to communicate information clearly and effectively through graphical means. Little research has been undertaken in the domain of construction scheduling. It can be noted that there is no standard graphics protocol; therefore, it is up to each individual planner to set his or her own standard. This paper develops a new chronographical conceptual framework that describes all the elements required to perform construction operations, their processes, their logical constraints and their association and organisational models. The protocol studies the suitable visual parameters and their associated values in order to define a standard graphical presentation using shapes, sketches, codes, text, textures and colours. This protocol aims to overcome the current difficulties with graphical visualisation of the considerable amount of data needed for effective planning and to increase the effectiveness of visual research based on human visual habits. The validation process was performed using case studies that evaluated visual data and assessed the necessary mental effort required to find information on the schedule. The graphical convention of textures and colours has already been validated. The results have clearly demonstrated that this convention helps to simplify the process of searching for information on the schedule.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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