A comparison of concrete quantities for highway bridge projects: preconstruction estimates vs onsite records
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares onsite concrete quantities to preconstruction estimates for 18 highway bridges in Canada to quantify the differences in quantities and to identify the driving factors. Material estimates completed during planning and design play a crucial role in predicting project cost, duration, and embodied CO2e emissions for construction projects. However, there is limited understanding of estimating material quantities for construction projects, and their impacts on other estimating processes, e.g., project cost, project schedule, embodied CO2e assessments. Results show that 3–87% greater concrete quantities are used onsite compared to estimates, with the bridges’ substructures responsible for most of the discrepancy. The findings of this study inform our understanding of the preconstruction estimates and their interpretation. Adjusting for the discrepancy between estimates and onsite measurements as well as targeting the drivers of unexpected material use has the potential to reduce environmental impacts, minimize cost overruns, and limit project delays.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it