MODELING RISKS IN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS: A CASE FOR EGYPT
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risk analysis is a vital step in the succession of construction projects. However, no adequate researches have been conducted to assess, and quantify risk events in real estate projects in developing countries, and particularly in Egypt.This research recommends Fuzzy Quantitative Risk Assessment Model to quantify risk factors participated in real estate development projects. Model is composed of two components: 1) Fuzzy Fault Tree (FT) that determines root causes of each risk, probability of its occurrence, and probability of mitigation strategies failure; and 2) Fuzzy Event Tree (ET) that calculates crisp value of Expected Monetary Value (EMV) of allowance of mitigation of the identified risks. Causes of risk are determined through literature review and interviews with experts in field. Risk probability occurrence is determined using five linguistic terms, defined either triangular or trapezoidal membership functions which are developed using modified horizontal approach and an interpolation technique. Two-step Delphi technique is used to achieve consensus on the root causes and logical representation of the Fault Tree. Fuzzy importance analysis is performed to rank different root causes for identified risks according to their criticality to probability of occurrence. A Case Study is presented to evaluate results obtained from model, in terms of Expected Monetary Value (EMV), and fuzzy probability of failure for each risk participated in case study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it