MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913423770 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2018-0349

Framework for developing labour-hour prediction models from project design features: case study in structural steel fabrication

2019· article· en· W2913423770 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Arash Mohsenijam, Ming Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Computer scienceRegression analysisRange (aeronautics)Linear regressionWork (physics)Predictive modellingIndustrial engineeringPoint (geometry)RegressionData miningOperations researchEngineeringMachine learningMathematicsStatisticsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assigning labour-hours to a certain scope of work during design and estimating is still more of an art than a science. This research proposes a data-driven approach that uses multiple linear regression (MLR) and available historical data from building information models (BIM) to associate project labour-hours and project design features. The framework relies on an enhanced version of stepwise regression technique to select the most relevant predictive factors and generate a predictive model without compromising the achievable accuracy of regression. The framework also encompasses analytical methods for justifying MLR application, validating the resulting model, and establishing range estimates for point-value predictions. In collaboration with an industry partner, the framework application is exemplified by analyzing labour-hours and design features for structural steel fabrication, leading to the creation of a valid MLR model in the simplest form. Finally, pros and cons for the proposed framework and opportunities for future research are discussed.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.228
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207