MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973020604 · doi:10.1504/ijpqm.2020.10023977

Modeling Construction labour productivity using Evolutionary Polynomial Regression

2019· article· en· W2973020604 on OpenAlexaff
Osama Moselhi, Sabah Alkass, Sasan Golnaraghi, Zahra Zangenehmadar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Productivity and Quality Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityScheduleInterdependenceArtificial neural networkRegression analysisEvolutionary algorithmEngineeringRegressionIndustrial engineeringEconometricsComputer scienceEconomicsStatisticsMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Construction projects are labour-intensive and labour costs are a substantial percentage of total budget. Impaired labour productivity causes an increase in construction project schedule. Labour productivity is one of the most frequently discussed topics in the construction industry, and modelling labour productivity by utilising different techniques has been getting more attention. It is a challenging task as it requires identifying the influencing factors as well as considering the associated interdependencies. This paper investigates the application of evolutionary polynomial regression (EPR) for modelling labour productivity in formwork installation. EPR is a data-driven hybrid modelling technique based on evolutionary computing and has been successfully applied to solving civil engineering problems. Results obtained from the EPR model were compared with the outcomes of three other methods: best subset, stepwise, and general regression neural network (GRNN). Results demonstrate the predictive superiority of the developed EPR model for nonlinear problems based on statistical performance indicators.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Productivity and Quality ManagementSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207