Tracking major resources for automated progress monitoring of construction activities: masonry work case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to monitor the progress of construction activities in an automated way by using sensor-based technologies for tracking multiple resources that are used in building construction. Design/methodology/approach An automated on-site progress monitoring approach was proposed and a proof-of-concept prototype was developed, followed by a field experimentation study at a high-rise building construction site. The developed approach was used to integrate sensor data collected from multiple resources used in different steps of an activity. It incorporated the domain-specific heuristics that were related to the site layout conditions and method of activity. Findings The prototype estimated the overall progress with 95% accuracy. More accurate and up-to-date progress measurement was achieved compared to the manual approach, and the need for visual inspections and manual data collection from the field was eliminated. Overall, the field experiments demonstrated that low-cost implementation is possible, if readily available or embedded sensors on equipment are used. Originality/value Previous studies either monitored one particular piece of equipment or the developed approaches were only applicable to limited activity types. This study demonstrated that it is technically feasible to determine progress at the site by fusing sensor data that are collected from multiple resources during the construction of building superstructure. The rule-based reasoning algorithms, which were developed based on a typical work practice of cranes and hoists, can be adapted to other activities that involve transferring bulk materials and use cranes and/or hoists for material handling.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".