MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Visualization of Delay Claim Analysis Using 4D Simulation

2018· article· en· W2805325611 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Guévremont, Amin Hammad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical path methodContext (archaeology)Computer scienceVisualizationSchedulePath (computing)Operations researchData miningSystems engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The precedence diagram method (PDM) is an accepted standard in the construction industry and a recognized method in courts in case of delay claims. In particular, four-dimensional (4D) simulation is becoming more prevalent in the construction industry as a means of decreasing productivity losses and delay claims. A 4D simulation is generated by linking a project three-dimensional (3D) model with the PDM schedule. It can be used for the visualization of the critical path to identify the cause–effect relationships and the responsible entity in the context of claims avoidance or claims resolution. This paper explores the use of 4D simulation for the visual comparison of float values when analyzing shifts in the critical path caused by delays. The findings are provided using a specific delay claim analysis method (i.e., time impact analysis) to model a hydropower workshop inspired by the industry context. In summary, 4D simulation has evolved into a reliable method for delay claim analysis.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and ConstructionSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207