Performance prediction of construction projects using soft computing methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Key performance indicators (KPIs) evaluate different aspects of projects and are used to determine the health status of projects. While there is considerable work on project quantitative performance prediction, less attention, however, has been directed towards qualitative performance prediction. This paper offers a novel framework for qualitatively measuring and predicting six important construction project KPIs using the neuro-fuzzy technique. Neuro-fuzzy models are developed to map the KPIs of three critical project stages to whole project KPIs. Subtractive clustering is utilized to automatically generate initial fuzzy inference system (FIS) models and the artificial neural network (ANN) technique is used to tune the parameters of the initial FIS models. The relative weight of each KPI is determined using a series of computing methods namely, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and genetic algorithm (GA), to generate the performance indicator (PI). The developed models are validated with real project data showing that the rate of error is reasonably low. The results show that the AHP method is more accurate when compared to the GA method. This framework can be used in building construction projects to help decision-makers evaluate the performance of their projects.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".