MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

OPTIMIZING PRODUCTIVITY RATE TO MINIMIZE OVERDRAFT INTEREST PAYMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

2021· article· en· W3193817600 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ahmed A. Okasha, Parastoo Eivazi Ziaei, Ahmed Hammad

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of International Structural Engineering and Construction · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCash flowOverdraftPaymentProfit (economics)BusinessCashInvestment (military)ProductivityFinanceComputer scienceEconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Winning a bid is a good opportunity for contractors that includes risks. After winning a project, contractors typically receive payments after two-three months of work completion that leads to negative cash flow (overdraft) throughout the duration of a project. Hence, contractors borrow from banks and pay monthly interests on the amount of overdraft they owe. To solve this problem, a hybrid model utilizing Discrete Event Simulation using SIMPHONY software, a special purpose simulation tool developed by the University of Alberta, accompanied by Markov Chain prediction technique. The developed hybrid model allows contractors to test different scenarios in search of the optimum productivity rate and payment arrangement to minimize negative cash flow. A case study utilizing a typical road construction project is used to test and validate the developed model and its ability to determine the optimum scenario. Results revealed that markup percentage and initial investment are two crucial factors to deliver the project successfully. In the harsh market, increasing the amount of cash to invest without a reasonable markup (at least 10%) will no longer make a profit. But, if the markup percentage could be increased by more than 15%, it will offer a chance to the contractor to make a profit and successfully deliver the project with initial investment reasonably low; and save a flexible productivity rate to finish the project within the schedule.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of International Structural Engineering and ConstructionSame topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207