MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220659750 · doi:10.3390/buildings12030354

Towards Automated Construction Quantity Take-Off: An Integrated Approach to Information Extraction from Work Descriptions

2022· article· en· W4220659750 on OpenAlexaff
Shengxian Tang, Hexu Liu, Manea Almatared, Osama Abudayyeh, Zhen Lei, A.C.M. Fong

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHidden Markov modelConditional random fieldInformation extractionArtificial intelligenceProcess (computing)Machine learningNatural language processingNamed-entity recognitionField (mathematics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Construction-oriented quantity take-off (QTO) refers to the process of determining the quantities for construction items or work packages in accordance with their descriptions. However, the current construction-oriented QTO practice relies on estimators’ manual interpretation of work descriptions and manual processes to look up proper building objects for quantity calculation. Hence, this research aims to develop natural language processing (NLP) and rule-based algorithms to automate the information extraction (IE) from work descriptions for QTO in building construction. Specifically, several named entity recognition (NER) models, including Hidden Markov Model (HMM), Conditional Random Field (CRF), Bidirectional-Long Short-Term Memory (Bi-LSTM), and Bi-LSTM+CRF, were developed to identify construction activities, material, building component, product features, measurement unit, and additional information (e.g., work scope) from work descriptions. Cost items in the RSMeans database are used to evaluate the developed models in terms of F1 scores. HMM was found to achieve a 5% higher F1 score in the NER than the other three algorithms. Then, labeling rules and active learning strategies were applied along with the HMM model, which improved F1 score by 3% and reduced the labeling efforts by 26%. The results showed that the proposed IE method successfully interprets the desired information from the work description for QTO. This research contributed to the body of knowledge by the NLP-based information extraction model integrating HMM and formalized labeling rules that automatically process work descriptions and lay a foundation for automated QTO and cost estimation.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuildingsSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207