MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200190812 · doi:10.3390/su14010288

Bim Machine Learning and Design Rules to Improve the Assembly Time in Steel Construction Projects

2021· article· en· W4200190812 on OpenAlexaff
Mathieu Fokwa Soh, David Bigras, Daniel Barbeau, Sylvie Doré, Daniel Forgues

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuilding information modelingDuration (music)Parametric statisticsCamber (aerodynamics)EngineeringConstruction engineeringComputer scienceManufacturing engineeringIndustrial engineeringSystems engineeringOperations managementStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Integrating the knowledge and experience of fabrication during the design phase can help reduce the cost and duration of steel construction projects. Building Information Modeling (BIM) are technologies and processes that reduce the cost and duration of construction projects by integrating parametric digital models as support of information. These models can contain information about the performance of previous projects and allow a classification by linear regression of design criteria with a high impact on the duration of the fabrication. This paper proposes a quantitative approach that applies linear regressions on previous projects’ BIM models to identify some design rules and production improvement points. A case study applied on 55,444 BIM models of steel joists validates this approach. This case study shows that the camber, the weight of the structure, and its reinforced elements greatly influence the fabrication time of the joists. The approach developed in this article is a practical case where machine learning and BIM models are used rather than interviews with professionals to identify knowledge related to a given steel structure fabrication system.

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 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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207