MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333800443 · doi:10.1061/9780784413029.084

Applying Regression Analysis to Predict and Classify Construction Cycle Time

2013· article· en· W2333800443 on OpenAlexaff
Ming-Fung Francis Siu, Ronald Ekyalimpa, Ming Lu, Simaan AbouRizk

Bibliographic record

VenueComputing in Civil Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Precast concreteRegression analysisLinear regressionComputer scienceRegressionMean squared errorSquare (algebra)Polynomial regressionEngineeringData miningMachine learningStatisticsMathematicsStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regression techniques are commonly used for addressing complicated prediction and classification problems in civil engineering thanks to its simplicity. For a given dataset, the linear regression from the input space to the output variables can be achieved by using the "least square error" approach, which minimizes the difference between the predicted and actual outputs. The "least mean square" rule can also be used as a generic approach to deriving solutions onlinear or non-linear regressions. The paper addresses the fundamental algorithms of "least square error" and "least mean square" in order to facilitate the prediction and classification of cycle times of construction operations. The classic XOR problem is selected to verify and validate their performances. A viaduct bridge was installed by launching precast girders with a mobile gantry sitting on two piers. The effectiveness of regression techniques in classifying and forecasting the cycle time of installing one span of viaduct considering the most relevant input factors in connection with operations, logistics and resources are demonstrated.

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)0.000
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 score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputing in Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207