Stakeholder Views on IT in Construction: A North American Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research study at the University of Calgary, Canada emphasized the immediate need of effective communication among all the construction project stakeholders — i.e. workers, construction managers, consultants, and clients. All these stakeholders identified lack of `on-site' communication as a key reason for low productivity. Construction industry is known for its' resistance in using Information Technologies (IT) compared to manufacturing, military, and agriculture industries. However, the construction workers participated in this study expressed their willingness and ability to use modern communication technologies in the work environment. The construction companies (managers) were not confident to acquire information technologies to the construction workface. They pointed the unavailability of information on worker abilities, technologies, possible outcomes, related costs, and benefits as the reasons for this resistance. Technology developers had difficulties to understand specific communication needs of the construction industry. This paper presents a summary of the views and concerns expressed by the construction industry stakeholders in North America regarding the possibilities and opportunities in using IT in construction projects. The paper is concluded with a set of recommendation to optimize the IT use in the 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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".