A Conceptual Cost Comparison Study between Alberta and Overseas Module Assembly Strategies for Industrial Construction Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the lower cost of construction resources in overseas countries (e.g. China and Korea) and advancements in transportation have increased the interest in offshore fabrication and assembly of industrial modules as an alternative to local assembly in Alberta, Canada. Many research studies have addressed the differences between modular and conventional methods of construction and developed decision support tools to assist the management team in selecting the best construction method. However, no study has investigated the effect of overseas fabrication and assembly on the cost of modular construction projects. This research study attempts to facilitate the performance of cost comparison at the conceptual stage between the local and foreign fabrication and assembly of industrial modules. In this study, the cost items required for conducting conceptual cost comparisons between the Alberta and overseas module fabrication and assembly are identified by interviewing experts in modular industrial construction. Moreover, a new method is proposed to investigate the differences between the Alberta and overseas fabrication and assembly of modules in terms of module quantity and required material. Furthermore, a statistical simulation model is developed to perform a cost comparison study between Alberta and overseas module assembly that can be used in future conceptual cost estimations of similar projects. This research assists project managers in comparing alternative assembly locations in industrial modular projects by providing a list of cost items, conducting a comparison between local and overseas module construction on two industrial projects, and developing a simulation tool for performing cost comparison studies on such projects.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".