MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923839026 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2018-0408

Lean construction and BIM in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in construction: a systematic literature review

2019· article· en· W2923839026 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Algan Tezel, Martin Taggart, Lauri Koskela, Patrícia Tzortzopoulos, John Hanahoe, Mark Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLean constructionBusinessConstruction industryBuilding information modelingSmall and medium-sized enterprisesSystematic reviewProcess managementKnowledge managementOperations managementConstruction engineeringComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lean construction (LC) and building information modeling (BIM) are two of the prominent concepts challenging the traditional practices in construction management. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) often constitute the largest group in construction supply chains. Increasing BIM and LC adoption amongst SMEs is a key condition for achieving the transformation of the construction industry through BIM and LC. The paper presents a systematic literature review of the adoption of (i) LC, (ii) BIM, and (iii) both LC and BIM in SMEs to evaluate the current literature, and 114 papers were included in the review. The bibliographic and content characteristics of the literature were discussed in detail. It was found that despite the importance of SMEs, the current LC and BIM literature falls short in terms of both number of publications and content of publications. The paper concludes with some generic suggestions for future research and action.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0200.023
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations95
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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