MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167790180 · doi:10.1108/ecam-12-2020-1060

Mixed qualitative–quantitative approach for bidding decisions in construction

2021· article· en· W3167790180 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emad Mohamed, Parinaz Jafari, Ahmed Hammad

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Construction & Architectural Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiddingComputer scienceQuantitative analysis (chemistry)Decision support systemReuseQualitative propertyOperations researchManagement scienceKnowledge managementData miningMachine learningBusinessEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The bid/no-bid decision is critical to the success of construction contractors. The factors affecting the bid/no-bid decision are either qualitative or quantitative. Previous studies on modeling the bidding decision have not extensively focused on distinguishing qualitative and quantitative factors. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to improve the bidding decision in construction projects by developing tools that consider both qualitative and quantitative factors affecting the bidding decision. Design/methodology/approach This study proposes a mixed qualitative-quantitative approach to deal with both qualitative and quantitative factors. The mixed qualitative-quantitative approach is developed by combining a rule-based expert system and fuzzy-based expert system. The rule-based expert system is used to evaluate the project based on qualitative factors and the fuzzy expert system is used to evaluate the project based on the quantitative factors in order to reach the comprehensive bid/no-bid decision. Findings Three real bidding projects are used to investigate the applicability and functionality of the proposed mixed approach and are tested with experts of a construction company in Alberta, Canada. The results demonstrate that the mixed approach provides a more reliable, accurate and practical tool that can assist decision-makers involved in the bid/no-bid decision. Originality/value This study contributes theoretically to the body of knowledge by (1) proposing a novel approach capable of modeling all types of factors (either qualitative or quantitative) affecting the bidding decision, and (2) providing means to acquire, store and reuse expert knowledge. Practical contribution of this paper is to provide decision-makers with a comprehensive model that mimics the decision-making process and stores experts' knowledge in the form of rules. Therefore, the model reduces the administrative burden on the decision-makers, saves time and effort and reduces bias and human errors during the bidding process.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering Construction & Architectural ManagementSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207