MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325887549 · doi:10.1061/40671(2003)9

Measuring and Estimating Steel Drafting Productivity

2003· article· en· W2325887549 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkScope (computer science)ProductivityProcess (computing)Work (physics)Industrial engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringManufacturing engineeringMachine learningMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes an engineering productivity measurement system and proposes a neural network modeling approach for estimating the engineering productivity. The methodology has been applied to steel drafting. Firstly, the research focused on measuring the work scope of steel drafting projects. A method of quantitatively measuring the work scope was developed based on installed quantities, which is the quantity of steel pieces in terms of their physical characteristics. With the developed consistent measurement standard, a neural network model for estimating drafting productivity was developed and implemented using influencing factors appropriate to project conditions. Historical data collected through an implemented data acquisition system in a steel fabrication company were prepared for neural network training and model validation. This predictive model streamlines and increases the accuracy of earlier estimating process, which was highly subjective.

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 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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207