MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193955682 · doi:10.3390/a14090254

Prioritizing Construction Labor Productivity Improvement Strategies Using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making and Fuzzy Cognitive Maps

2021· article· en· W3193955682 on OpenAlexafffund
Matin Kazerooni, Phuong H. D. Nguyen, Aminah Robinson Fayek

Bibliographic record

VenueAlgorithms · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Science and Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFuzzy cognitive mapComputer scienceProductivityFuzzy logicSelection (genetic algorithm)Operations researchRisk analysis (engineering)Management scienceFuzzy setArtificial intelligenceEngineeringBusinessFuzzy numberEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Construction labor productivity (CLP) is affected by various interconnected factors, such as crew motivation and working conditions. Improved CLP can benefit a construction project in many ways, such as a shortened project life cycle and lowering project cost. However, budget, time, and resource restrictions force companies to select and implement only a limited number of CLP improvement strategies. Therefore, a research gap exists regarding methods for supporting the selection of CLP improvement strategies for a given project by quantifying the impact of strategies on CLP with respect to interrelationships among CLP factors. This paper proposes a decision support model that integrates fuzzy multi-criteria decision making with fuzzy cognitive maps to prioritize CLP improvement strategies based on their impact on CLP, causal relationships among CLP factors, and project characteristics. The proposed model was applied to determine CLP improvement strategies for concrete-pouring activities in building projects as an illustrative example. This study contributes to the body of knowledge by providing a systematic approach for selecting appropriate CLP improvement strategies based on interrelationships among the factors affecting CLP and the impact of such strategies on CLP. The results are expected to support construction practitioners with identifying effective improvement strategies to enhance CLP in their projects.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlgorithmsSame topicCognitive Science and MappingFrench-language works237,207