MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2625069236 · doi:10.19255/jmpm01304

Building Information Modeling (BIM) in Brazil's Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) Industry: A Review and a Bibliometric Study

2017· review· en· W2625069236 on OpenAlexaff
Darli Rodrigues Vieira, Jo�ão Luiz Calmon, Marianne Cortes Cavalcante Faroni

Bibliographic record

VenueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology) · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuilding information modelingScope (computer science)InteroperabilityArchitectureProcess (computing)Engineering managementEngineeringConstruction industryWork (physics)SustainabilityConstruction engineeringFacility managementArchitectural engineeringProcess managementKnowledge managementSystems engineeringComputer scienceBusinessOperations managementWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building Information Modeling (BIM) is transforming how buildings are designed, constructed, operated, maintained and demolished and has attracted significant attention as a process that can positively impact the performance of architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) projects. The research and use of BIM processes and software in Brazil are incipient. This paper aims to provide a review of the scope of the Brazilian BIM literature and outlines the most important directions for future research. The work is developed based on an extensive and critical bibliographic study on journals, papers, conferences and Brazilian-authored master's and doctoral dissertations. The results show little significant Brazilian contributions in the international field and scarce BIM implementation in the Brazilian AEC industry, especially in interoperability issues, post-construction phases, and life cycle analysis.The reasons for this finding are the lack of professionals involved in the entire life cycle of buildings who have expertise in BIM tools and processes as well as the fact that teaching and research on BIM in universities and Brazilian research centers are weak compared to other countries, which shows the need for these institutions to adopt the BIM model as an essential tool for teaching engineering and architecture.BIM, construction, sustainability, review, Brazil

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0200.036
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology)→Same topicBIM and Construction Integration→CategoryBibliometrics→French-language works237,207→