Genetic Algorithm–Simulation Framework for Decision Making in Construction Site Layout Planning
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
Site layout planning is a complicated task in many construction projects because of the diversity of decision variables, conflicting objectives, and the variety of possible solutions. This paper describes a framework that facilitates decision making on site-layout planning problems. The framework consists of three phases: (1) functionality evaluation phase (FEP), which qualitatively evaluates using a new method; (2) cost evaluation phase (CEP), which quantitatively evaluates the goodness of the layouts using simulation; and (3) value evaluation phase (VEP), which selects the most desirable layout from both qualitative and quantitative aspects. This framework also takes advantage of heuristic optimization through genetic algorithm (GA) to search for the most qualified layouts within FEP. The primary contribution of this research is to introduce a novel method for evaluating quality of layouts, which more realistically model the closeness constraints, and consider size and location desirability in the evaluating function. Also, using simulation for estimating project cost improves the effectiveness of the framework in practice because simulation can model construction processes, uncertainties, resources, and dynamic interactions between various parameters. Applicability of the framework is demonstrated through a case study of the layout planning of a tunneling project.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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