MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937620236 · doi:10.29173/mocs12

Factors Affecting Construction Labor Productivity in China: A Case Study of Chongqing

2016· article· en· W2937620236 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuxuan Wang, Yuhe Wang, Wenjun Fan

Bibliographic record

VenueModular and Offsite Construction (MOC) Summit Proceedings · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvaluation and Optimization Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityWageConstruction industryChinaSustainable developmentBusinessEconomicsLabour economicsEconomic growthEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Labor productivity is an important indicator of Chinese construction industry development, so it has a positive influence on study the factors affecting construction labor productivity for the sustainable development in construction industry. Since Chongqing became one of Chinese municipality in 1997, construction industry had a rapid development. But the construction labor productivity in Chongqing is still low. Thus, this paper selects construction labor productivity data in Chongqing as the research object, and indicates labor productivity is affected by eight specific factors from economy, technology, capital, labor and management aspects. Based on the data, this paper uses principal component analysis (PCA) method and multiple linear regression (MLR) to analyze the relationship between labor productivity and affecting factors. The result reveals labor productivity in Chongqing is affected by the average wage in construction industry, GDP and construction and installation engineering investment. Meanwhile, a low labor productivity in Chongqing dues to a lack of technological innovation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModular and Offsite Construction (MOC) Summit ProceedingsSame topicEvaluation and Optimization ModelsFrench-language works237,207