MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214522040 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2021-0248

Predictive model for construction labour productivity using hybrid feature selection and principal component analysis

2022· article· en· W4214522040 on OpenAlexaffvenue
S. Mohammadreza Ebrahimi, Matin Kazerooni, Vuppuluri Sumati, Aminah Robinson Fayek

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverfittingPrincipal component analysisFeature selectionPredictive modellingComputer scienceCurse of dimensionalityArtificial intelligenceSelection (genetic algorithm)Data miningFeature (linguistics)Machine learningComponent (thermodynamics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Construction labour productivity (CLP) is affected by numerous variables made up of subjective and objective factors. Thus, CLP modelling and prediction are a complex task, leading to high computational cost and the risk of overfitting of data. This paper proposes a predictive model for CLP by integrating hybrid feature selection (HFS), as a combination of filter and wrapper methods, with principal component analysis (PCA). This developed HFS-PCA method reduces the dimensionality and complexity of CLP data and obtains better prediction performance by identifying the most predictive factors. Identified factors are utilized as inputs for various classification methods to predict CLP. Finally, prediction errors of the classification methods with and without using the proposed HFS-PCA method are compared, and the most accurate classification method is selected to develop the CLP predictive model. Experimental results show that using HFS-PCA for CLP prediction leads to better performances compared with past studies.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.183
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207