MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905506197 · doi:10.3311/ccc2018-056

Design rules to improve efficiency in the steel construction industry

2018· article· en· W2905506197 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCreative Construction Conference 2018 - Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering and Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsTreasury Board of Canada SecretariatÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstruction industryComputer scienceManufacturing engineeringConstruction engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In steel construction projects, 88% of total decisions impacting cost are made during the design phase. These decisions are made by design professionals, who have neither the knowledge nor the experience of manufacturing operations. In manufacturing engineering, collaboration between designers and manufacturers is well established and formalized through different methods and design rules such as design for manufacturing and assembly (DFMA). These rules provide designers with essential knowledge to reduce the cost and time of manufacturing and assembly of parts during their design, while increasing customer satisfaction Building Information Modeling (BIM) and TFV Theory (Transformation Flow and Value) provide to the construction industry, tools and processes to improve collaboration between design and manufacturing phases while reducing waste during projects. However, BIM and TFV theory do not formalize collaboration between designers and manufacturers of steel structures. Yet, the lack of collaboration between these two phases causes lot of rework, lot of waste of time and material during 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.817

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.202 · 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