MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220952990 · doi:10.18280/ijsse.120106

The Security Cost as Part of Construction Safety Cost: Case Study of Flats Construction

2022· article· en· W4220952990 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ratih Fitriani, Yusuf Latief, Putut Marhayudi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Safety and Security Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKementerian Riset dan Teknologi /Badan Riset dan Inovasi NasionalBadan Riset dan Inovasi Nasional
KeywordsScope (computer science)Statement of workWork (physics)Transport engineeringConstruction site safetyCost estimateBuilding constructionEngineeringBusinessRisk analysis (engineering)Civil engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indonesia is currently experiencing a rapid increase in infrastructural development, including the construction of flats. This has led to a rise in construction-related accidents due to the lack of an appropriate safety budget for projects and further worsened by the separatist movement, theft, and vandalism, specifically in the eastern part of Indonesia. Therefore, this research aims to prove that factors, such as construction location and building height, affect construction safety costs in flats. The research found that safety costs consist of 3 parts, namely general, specific, and security costs. The construction safety cost was simulated using Monte Carlo analysis, which showed the amount of safety cost in flats construction in Eastern Indonesia, is higher than the Western part. Furthermore, the safety cost for more than 3-storey flats is higher than those for 3-storey. This shows that the location affects the cost of additional security. In addition, the building height also affects construction safety costs due to differences in the scope of work contained in the WBS.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Safety and Security EngineeringSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ManagementFrench-language works237,207