Simulation Applications in Construction Site Layout Planning
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
Simulation Applications in Construction Site Layout Planning S. Razavialavi, S. AbouRizk Pages 275-284 (2013 Proceedings of the 30th ISARC, Montréal, Canada, ISBN 978-1-62993-294-1, ISSN 2413-5844) Abstract: In the planning phase of every construction project, layout of temporary facilities is a crucial task; site layout can affect safety, travel cost and time, construction productivity, and space utilization. However, site layout planning can be a complicated problem, due to the interdependency of influencing factors. Although interaction among activities is one of the major drivers of site layout planning, it has not been properly addressed in past research. In this study, simulation is presented as a promising tool to address this gap. The capability of simulation technology to model complex processes in construction projects makes use of simulation tools in site layout optimization problems effective, while existing methods are unable to perfectly model these problems, in some cases. Additionally, the advantages and challenges of implementing simulation are assessed and a generic framework for simulation application in site layout planning is proposed. Keywords: Site layout planning, Simulation, Layout optimization, Construction preplanning DOI: https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2013/0030 Download fulltext Download BibTex Download Endnote (RIS) TeX Import to Mendeley
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