Construction workspace management: critical review and roadmap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Construction workspace management has been a big issue in research and practice in recent years due to the need to improve productivity and safety by reducing spatio-temporal clashes in the management of construction projects. The complexities and dynamic nature of construction sites make construction workspace management difficult due to the continually evolving nature of the workspace. The space planning problem in construction has two main elements that are interdependent but require different approaches: the space scheduling problem, focused on the planning of task execution spaces, and the site layout problem, focused on the location of temporary facilities of various kinds. However, despite the importance of construction workspace management, a comprehensive review of the subject matter is absent in the literature. The objectives of this study are (1) to identify prominent themes in published research; (2) to compare work published within each theme; and (3) to suggest future directions for construction equipment space planning.
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 | 0.019 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".