MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3144893049 · doi:10.1109/wsc.2007.4419841

Special purpose simulation template for workflow analysis in construction

2007· article· en· W3144893049 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sivakumar Palaniappan, Kenneth Walsh, Anil Sawhney, Howard H. Bashford

Bibliographic record

Venue2007 Winter Simulation Conference · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsWorkflowComputer scienceSoftware engineeringCrewProcess (computing)SoftwareWorkflow technologyComponent (thermodynamics)Systems engineeringDatabaseProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Workflow analysis is an important component in the simulation of construction operations. It involves creating a specific number of work requests for a crew every time period, computing outputs such as work arrival rate for a downstream crew and plotting work in process (WIP). These outputs are not directly provided in many construction simulation software tools. Determining these outputs is generally considered a time consuming and tedious undertaking. Developing modeling constructs that automate the computation of these workflow outputs will be useful for construction modelers. This paper presents a special purpose simulation (SPS) template developed for workflow analysis. The SPS template consists of four modeling constructs that implement the workflow analysis functionalities mentioned above. The SPS template logic was verified using two simulation experiments. Use of this SPS template for analyzing different workflow based issues as well as to test the production management principles in construction is also highlighted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2007 Winter Simulation ConferenceSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207