MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886699219 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2017-0670

Resource leveling in construction projects with activity splitting and resource constraints: a simulated annealing optimization

2018· article· en· W2886699219 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicResource-Constrained Project Scheduling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResource levelingSimulated annealingResource (disambiguation)OvertimeComputer scienceNoveltyOperations researchHeuristicStakeholderIndustrial engineeringProject managementEngineeringSystems engineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Overtime and over-budget construction projects are not pleasant to any stakeholder. Stakeholders want construction projects to be completed without delay and excessive cost. It is possible to meet these objectives by using resource management techniques such as resource leveling. Due to the limitation of resources and different types of them in a construction project, optimizing the resource utilization is crucial. In this paper, a meta-heuristic simulated annealing resource leveling model is presented. The novelty of this model lies not only in the type of modeling and optimization but also in its assumptions. Our model simultaneously allows activities to split and considers a limitation in resource availabilities. The developed model was implemented in a computer program. Then, it was applied to an example from the literature of resource leveling. The model successfully solved the problem. The results of our model are compared with those already available in the literature.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.236 · 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