MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196867374 · doi:10.1108/ecam-02-2021-0145

An empirical study on non-physical waste factors in the construction industry

2021· article· en· W3196867374 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Construction & Architectural Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRanking (information retrieval)Sample (material)Empirical researchQuality (philosophy)PopulationProcess managementIndex (typography)Operations managementPerformance indicatorEngineeringComputer scienceBusinessMarketingStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This study highlights the findings of an empirical study to investigate waste factors (WFs) affecting the performance and delivery of construction projects in developing countries. The objectives of this study are to identify non-physical WFs in developing nations and rank the identified factors based on their degree of influence on the key performance indicators (KPIs) of cost, quality and time. Design/methodology/approach In total, 34 WFs were identified through a detailed literature review and consolidated using semi-structured interviews with construction practitioners. The statistical analysis involved a normality test using the Shapiro–Wilk test to determine if sample data have been drawn from a normally distributed population, ranking the WFs using the Frequency Index (FI), Severity Index (SI) and Importance Index (IMPI), ranking the WFs based on their effect on the project KPIs of cost, quality and time, and identify clustering structures for the identified WFs to using factor analysis (FA). Findings The results revealed ineffective planning and scheduling, rework/repair of defective work and resource quality problems (human, material and equipment) as the three most important WFs affecting construction projects. The factor analyses showed that WFs can be grouped into five interrelated components, suggesting the need for integrated and holistic strategies to overcome the identified WF. Practical implications Understanding the effects of WFs on construction projects is a first step towards designing holistic solutions to ensuring projects deliver value to the clients and other stakeholders. The findings of this study provide direction to construction practitioners on where to focus appropriate strategies to manage the identified WFs effectively and, therefore, improve the productivity of construction projects. Originality/value This study provides the first holistic analysis of WFs affecting the productivity of construction projects in developing countries.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.308 · 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