An Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Risk Analysis Model (IT2FRAM) for Determining Construction Project Contingency Reserve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determining contingency reserve is critical to project risk management. Classic methods of determining contingency reserve significantly rely on historical data and fail to effectively incorporate certain types of uncertainties such as vagueness, ambiguity, and subjectivity. In this paper, an interval type-2 fuzzy risk analysis model (IT2FRAM) is introduced in order to determine the contingency reserve. In IT2FRAM, the membership functions for the linguistic terms used to describe the probability, impact of risk and the opportunity events are developed, optimized, and aggregated using interval type-2 fuzzy sets and the principle of justifiable granularity. IT2FRAM is an extension of a fuzzy arithmetic-based risk analysis method which considers such uncertainties and addresses the limitations of probabilistic and deterministic techniques of contingency determination methods. The contribution of IT2FRAM is that it considers the opinions of several subject matter experts to develop the membership functions of linguistic terms. Moreover, the effect of outlier opinions in developing the membership functions of linguistic terms are reduced. IT2FRAM also enables the aggregation of non-linear membership functions into trapezoidal membership functions. A hypothetical case study is presented in order to illustrate the application of IT2FRAM in Fuzzy Risk Analyzer© (FRA©), a risk analysis software.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".