MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955909757 · doi:10.29173/mocs94

A Pilot Study of Identifying Execution Plan Differences for Accelerated Bridge Construction

2019· article· en· W2955909757 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elina Prajapati, Jin Ouk Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueModular and Offsite Construction (MOC) Summit Proceedings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Plan (archaeology)Computer sciencePreferenceProcess managementOperations managementTransport engineeringEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accelerated bridge construction (ABC) is an innovative construction technique used to accelerate the construction of new bridges, as well as the renovation/replacement of existing bridges. Due to the benefits offered by ABC, transportation authorities have a higher preference in executing an accelerated approach over conventional bridge construction. The execution of an accelerated approach has differences when compared to the conventional approach, and it is important to identify such differences for the successful implementation of ABC projects. However, there have been no studies to identify such execution differences. Therefore, this study was conducted to identify execution plan differences relevant to ABC. For this purpose, an extensive literature review was conducted to prepare a preliminary list of execution plan differences. Then, a questionnaire survey was administered with the industry experts, who were previously involved in the execution of ABC projects, to validate the preliminary list. Based on the literature review and the responses from questionnaire survey, this study identified 61 execution plan differences relevant to ABC in different phases of execution. This study is expected to benefit owners, contractors, and road/bridge users for successful execution of ABC 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.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModular and Offsite Construction (MOC) Summit ProceedingsSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207