Design Change Time Ripple Effect Analysis Using a BIM-Based Quantification Model
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes arising from the addition, deletion, and/or modification of a project’s design frequently cause delays. Such changes may take many forms; however, owner-acknowledged change should receive more attention than other types of change, as it might present a risk to both owners and contractors. These changes, both individually and collectively, can have a ripple effect on what appears to be the unchanged scope of a project’s work plan, with varying impacts on project schedule. The efficient management of design changes requires a minimization of the time impacts of these changes. This paper presents a building information modeling (BIM)-based quantification model, developed to help design professionals quantify the ripple effect of contemplated design changes requested by owners after the completion of the design phase and before the commencement of construction. The developed model calculates the impact of changes on a project’s time frame. After analyzing the ripple effect of time, the model updates the project schedule accordingly. The developed model is expected to help owners and their agents make better decisions about approving or rejecting contemplated changes. The model has been applied to a case project to demonstrate its use and to illustrate its essential features.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it