MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281764096 · doi:10.1108/tqm-09-2021-0272

Identifying factors affecting waste production throughout the construction project life cycle and proposing BIM-based solutions

2022· article· en· W4281764096 on OpenAlexaff
Solmaz Ahmadzadeh Amid, Esmatullah Noorzai, Mahmood Golabchi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe TQM Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRecycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemolitionConstruction wastePrefabricationProduction (economics)Cleaner productionBuilding information modelingDemolition wasteLife-cycle assessmentValue engineeringQuality (philosophy)Environmental economicsMunicipal solid wasteBusinessWaste managementConstruction engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Operations managementEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Because the construction industry is one of the largest waste producers, understanding the primary reasons for waste production is essential. The goal of this study is to identify the major causes of waste production over the project life cycle in Iran's construction industry and to propose effective solutions based on modern technologies like BIM. Design/methodology/approach After identifying the primary causes of construction and demolition waste production through interviews and literature analysis, solutions based on building information modeling (BIM) were provided. Then, using questionnaires and exploratory factor analysis (EFA), the areas impacting waste reduction were found. Findings The findings suggest that “prefabrication” is the best approach for improving time and quality, while “detection and prediction of errors in the design and construction phases” is the most cost-effective technique for addressing cost and environmental issues. Originality/value Cost, time, quality and environmental concerns may all be influenced by effective waste management throughout the project life cycle. Furthermore, utilizing state-of-the-art technologies has far-reaching implications for reducing material waste, resulting in more environmental-friendly construction.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe TQM JournalSame topicRecycled Aggregate Concrete PerformanceFrench-language works237,207