MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326743463 · doi:10.1061/41020(339)99

Visualization Configuration Model for Integrating Presentation of Construction Project Management Data

2009· article· en· W2326743463 on OpenAlexaff
Jianguo David Ye, Thomas Froese

Bibliographic record

VenueConstruction Research Congress 2009 · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisualizationComputer scienceFlexibility (engineering)Information visualizationDomain (mathematical analysis)Data visualizationFocus (optics)Software visualizationSoftwareHuman–computer interactionSoftware engineeringData scienceData miningSoftware developmentComponent-based software engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Construction management tasks involve and produce voluminous, multidimensional data. Although many tasks currently are supported with software tools, it still requires great mental effort for project personnel to read information in datasets and analyze relationships from one dataset to another. Information visualization is widely considered to hold the potential of providing insights from datasets by visually presenting project management data and information relationships. Many visualization solutions are available to the construction domain, but they usually focus on specific application tasks, lacking flexibility and data integration in user-interaction for construction management. This paper proposes a Visualization Configuration Model (VCM), a novel visualization technique for construction project management. Integrated with the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) data model, the VCM is developed to be a configurable visualization environment, facilitating user-interactions to explore voluminous information. The model framework and underlying theories for integrating model components are provided. Through analysis of two case scenarios, the paper demonstrates the capability of the VCM supporting view configuration and illustrates the potential of visualization to benefit construction management tasks.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.307 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstruction Research Congress 2009Same topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207