Automated Extraction and Time-Cost Prediction of Contractual Reporting Requirements in Construction Using Natural Language Processing and Simulation
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
Due to a lack of suitable methods, extraction of reporting requirements from lengthy construction contracts is often completed manually. Because of this, the time and costs associated with completing reporting requirements are often informally approximated, resulting in underestimations. Without a clear understanding of requirements, contractors are prevented from implementing improvements to reporting workflows prior to project execution. This study developed an automated reporting requirement identification and time–cost prediction framework to overcome this challenge. Reporting requirements are extracted using Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML), and stochastic simulations are used to predict overhead costs and durations associated with report preparation. Functionality and validity of the framework were demonstrated using real contracts, and an accuracy of over 95% was observed. This framework provides a tool to rapidly and efficiently retrieve requirements and quantify the time and costs associated with reporting, in turn providing necessary insights to streamline reporting workflows.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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