Machine Learning Algorithms for Construction Projects Delay Risk Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Projects delays are among the most pressing challenges faced by the construction sector attributed to the sector’s complexity and its inherent delay risk sources’ interdependence. Machine learning offers an ideal set of techniques capable of tackling such complex systems; however, adopting such techniques within the construction sector remains at an early stage. The goal of this study was to identify and develop machine learning models in order to facilitate accurate project delay risk analysis and prediction using objective data sources. As such, relevant delay risk sources and factors were first identified, and a multivariate data set of previous projects’ time performance and delay-inducing risk sources was then compiled. Subsequently, the complexity and interdependence of the system was uncovered through an exploratory data analysis. Accordingly, two suitable machine learning models, utilizing decision tree and naïve Bayesian classification algorithms, were identified and trained using the data set for predicting project delay extents. Finally, the predictive performances of both models were evaluated through cross validation tests, and the models were further compared using machine-learning-relevant performance indices. The evaluation results indicated that the naïve Bayesian model provides a better predictive performance for the data set examined. Ultimately, the work presented herein harnesses the power of machine learning to facilitate evidence-based decision making, while inherent risk factors are active, interdependent, and dynamic, thus empowering proactive project risk management strategies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".