Manufacturing of modular buildings: a literature review
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
The recent decade has seen a growing interest in applying modular construction in high-rise buildings. However, the manufacturing of modular buildings remains slow in making technical progress and the productivity in the factory is low. The production of modules is unique and complicated as it incorporates both manufacturing features and construction trades. Whereas previous studies have proposed technologies and tools associated with design, operation and optimisation of module manufacturing systems, this field of research is currently fragmented. This paper aims to provide a systematic review of existing academic perspectives and suggest future research directions to improve module manufacturing systems. The review explores critical research issues from five aspects: process and activities, organisation and people, factory configuration, technology, and information and control system. Outlined suggestions for research opportunities include (1) increased utilisation of digital manufacturing, (2) more exploration of strategies for the adoption of automated technologies, (3) development of holistic and practical approaches to supporting DfMA methodology, (4) well-defined information management systems through BIM. The findings should contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the practices, challenges and the state-of-the-art research in the manufacturing of modular buildings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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