Neuro-fuzzy systems in construction engineering and management research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuro-fuzzy systems (NFS) can explicitly represent and model the input–output relationships of complex problems and non-linear systems, like those inherent in real-world construction engineering and management (CEM) problems. This paper contributes three things previously lacking in CEM literature: a systematic review and content analysis of published articles related to NFS topics in CEM research; identification of criteria to evaluate different NFS; and recommendations to researchers and industry practitioners in choosing a suitable subset of NFS techniques for solving different types of CEM problems. The literature review reveals that NFS classification methods are based on NFS architecture, learning algorithm, fuzzy method, and application area. This paper systematically categorizes CEM application domains (decision making, prediction/forecasting, evaluation/assessment, system modeling and analysis, simulation, and optimization) and maps them to NFS based on their suitability, which is determined using the performance evaluation criteria of convergence speed, computational complexity, interpretability, accuracy, and local minima trapping.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it