MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395355970 · doi:10.1061/9780784479827.178

A Fuzzy Aggregation Method for Measuring Construction Crew Motivation

2016· article· en· W2395355970 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

VenueConstruction Research Congress 2016 · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrewComputer scienceProductivityFuzzy logicFuzzy setOperations researchArtificial intelligenceEngineeringAeronautics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this paper is to define a method to measure construction crew motivation assessed at both the individual and crew levels. After performing a literature review to identify relevant factors, we present a methodology for assessing overall crew motivation based on the aggregation of expert opinions. The method entails asking experts (e.g., crew workers or supervisors) to provide inputs for the various measures, and then using a fuzzy aggregation approach to combine individual and crew-level responses. The findings of this paper will help to model and analyze construction crew behavior, which will contribute to better prediction and management of construction labor productivity and project performance.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.303 · 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