MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296568242 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2015-0434

Total float management: computerized technique for construction delay analysis

2016· article· en· W2296568242 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khalid S. Al-Gahtani, Ibrahim A. Al-Sulaihi, Asif Iqupal

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKing Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology
KeywordsSoftwareComputer scienceScheduleFloat (project management)RetardStatic timing analysisSoftware engineeringReal-time computingSystems engineeringEmbedded systemEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing a holistic and accurate delay analysis software is still challenging the current delay analysis practices. Most of the existing delay analysis techniques are not programmed and still depend on manual calculations. The currently available computerized delay analysis techniques are still limited, suffer from many drawbacks, and do not consider many of the delay analysis situations. This paper introduces web-based software called total float management (TFM) software for analyzing delay claim utilizing TFM delay analysis technique. The TFM technique depends on day-by-day analysis, which gives more accurate analysis over other techniques. The software has the ability to import schedule data from Primavera P6 and Microsoft Project (MS project) software in various formats. This feature makes analysis easier and reduces the time required for data input. Many other features are included in the TFM software, such as the ability to address concurrent delays, change orders, and acceleration events.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207