Building information modeling and field operations: opportunities and challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building information modeling (BIM) use in field operations to support daily activities during the construction phase is still lacking when compared with design and office-related activities like design, clash detection, estimating, and planning in the owner–architecture–engineering–construction (OAEC) industry. This study explores the use of BIM in field operations or lack thereof, identifies factors that either act as barriers to or promoters of BIM implementation in field operations, and identifies ways in which BIM implementation in field operations can be improved. The study was developed using a mixed-mode approach including case studies, interviews, and a survey, and using Lean construction-related literature to analyze the results. Findings support the importance of using BIM to visualize and plan field operations and prevent wasteful interactions between resources (workers, equipment, and time). Additionally, findings indicate that those who receive more training on BIM use tend to have more trust on its potential and use it more often.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".