Automated monitoring and assessment of productivity in earthmoving projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous monitoring of productivity and assessment of its variations are crucial processes that significantly contribute to success of earthmoving projects. Numerous factors may lead to productivity variations. However, these factors are subjectively identified using manual knowledge-based expert judgment. Such manual recognition process is not only subject to errors but also time-consuming. There is a lack of research work that focuses on near real-time assessment of productivity variation and its effect on cost, schedule and effective utilization of resources in earthmoving projects. This paper presents a customized multi-source automated data acquisition model that acquires data from a variety of wireless sensing technologies. The acquired multi-sensor data are transmitted to a central MySQL database. Then a newly developed data fusion algorithm is applied for truck state recognition, and hence the duration of each earthmoving state. Multi-sensor data fusion facilitates measurement of actual productivity, and consequently the assessment of productivity ratios that support continuous monitoring of productivity variation in earthmoving operations. The developed tracking and monitoring model generates an early warning that supports proactive decisions to avoid schedule delays, cost overruns, and inefficient depletion of resources. A case study is used to reveal the applicability of the proposed model in monitoring and assessing actual productivity and its deviations from planned productivity. Finally, results are discussed and conclusions are drawn highlighting the features of the proposed model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".