MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956030448 · doi:10.1061/9780784413517.153

Assessment of the Effect of Changing Activities' Start Times on Cash-flow Parameters

2014· article· en· W2956030448 on OpenAlexaff
Marwa H. Ahmed, Tarek Zayed, Ashraf Elazouni

Bibliographic record

VenueConstruction Research Congress 2014 · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCash flowMetric (unit)Flow (mathematics)Terminal valueEconometricsScheduleCash flow forecastingComputer scienceMathematicsEconomicsFinanceOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cash flow modeling is crucial to contractorsto sustain business. Contractors carry out multiple activities within a single project wherein the change of the start times of the activities have varying effect on the values of periodical negative cumulative balances and the other cash-flow parameters. Thus, changing the activities' start times leads consequently to changes in the value of the maximum negative cumulative balance and other cash-flow parameters as well. Schedule-driven cash flow models typically are generated to identify the effect of activities start times on projects' cash flow parameters. In this paper, Monte Carlo simulation technique has been employed to generate schedules and their associated cash flow parameters. The activities' start times are assumed to follow uniform discrete probability distributions with the minimum and maximum values representing the early and late start times respectively. Further, the proposed simulation model considered the stochastic nature of cash-in and cash-out transactions by incorporating the effect of 43 qualitative factors. Three scenarios are defined; each scenario incorporates a different number of qualitative factors. Advanced sensitivity analysis is performed to measure the effect of changing the start times on cash flow using the correlation coefficients. Finally, the proposed simulation model help practitioners identify the activities that highly affect the cash flow and provides a metric to measure the strength of their impact.

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)0.016
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstruction Research Congress 2014Same topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207