MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220981506 · doi:10.1061/9780784483961.092

Framework for Simulating Crew Motivation Impact on Productivity—A Hybrid Modeling Approach

2022· article· en· W4220981506 on OpenAlex
Nebiyu Siraj Kedir, Mohammad Raoufi, Aminah Robinson Fayek

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueConstruction Research Congress 2022 · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrewProductivityDynamismComputer scienceFuzzy logicTrack (disk drive)Identification (biology)Industrial engineeringIndustrial organizationBusinessEngineeringArtificial intelligenceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies have identified motivation as one of the most important factors affecting the efficiency of labor utilization in construction processes. However, there is a lack of research on simulating the impact of motivation on labor productivity to track and devise productivity improvement strategies. Fuzzy system dynamics (FSD) has been used to model labor productivity, because it captures subjective uncertainties and the dynamism of construction systems. However, FSD fails to capture complexity arising from individual components (e.g., crew members) that lead to emerging behaviors in crew motivation modeling. The main contributions of this paper are: (1) proposing a framework for combining FSD and fuzzy agent-based modeling, leading to a more comprehensive method for studying the impact of crew motivation on productivity; and (2) facilitating identification of more effective productivity improvement strategies by allowing construction stakeholders to track the dynamic relationships between motivation and labor productivity.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.271 · 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