MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937220994 · doi:10.29173/mocs18

Modelling the Construction On-Site Technology Adoption Process

2016· article· en· W2937220994 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samad M. E. Sepasgozar, Martin Loosemore

Bibliographic record

VenueModular and Offsite Construction (MOC) Summit Proceedings · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityProcess (computing)BusinessExhibitionInformation technologyInnovation diffusionEngineeringMarketingComputer scienceEconomicsEconomic growthGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The global modern technology market in the construction industry is valued at billions of dollars and the approach to technology diffusion taken by vendors has a major impact on the success or failure of those technologies. While many previous studies have examined the adoption and the diffusion of information technologies, the technology diffusion process for advanced on-site equipment such as tower and mobile cranes, piling rig and concrete pumps has received little attention. Based on interviews with vendors and customers covering regions in Australia and North America, during major construction equipment exhibitions, this paper presents a new equipment technology adoption model which, for the first time, describes the relationship between customers and vendors during the on-site technology adoption process. The implications of the model for fostering new on-site technology diffusion to boost productivity 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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModular and Offsite Construction (MOC) Summit ProceedingsSame topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207