A Sensor-Based Empirical Framework to Measure Construction Labor Productivity
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measurement of construction labor productivity involves various subjective factors (e.g., motivation, stress, and fatigue). Most measurement approaches for subjective factors in productivity applications require manual data collection (e.g., questionnaires, interviews, and observations); therefore, research gaps exist regarding how to (1) directly measure subjective factors using data that reflect workers’ real performance at single points in time, and (2) integrate these factors into existing or new models in labor productivity applications. This paper proposes an empirical framework for integrating real-time data from multiple sensors for directly measuring subjective factors affecting labor productivity. The proposed framework, which was designed, built, and evaluated using design science research methodology, contributes to the body of knowledge as part of a longer-term study proposing an empirical framework for triangulating data from a multi-sensor system to simultaneously measure multiple subjective factors affecting labor productivity. Study outcomes will complement existing artificial intelligence, simulation, and statistical models for construction productivity applications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it