MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284686519 · doi:10.3390/buildings12070960

A Predictive Analytics Framework for Mobile Crane Configuration Selection in Heavy Industrial Construction Projects

2022· article· en· W4284686519 on OpenAlexafffund
Ramtin Azami, Zhen Lei, Ulrich Hermann, Travis Zubick

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsPCL Construction (Canada)University of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHeuristicAnalyticsPredictive analyticsSelection (genetic algorithm)Artificial neural networkComputer scienceVariety (cybernetics)EngineeringProject managementSet (abstract data type)Industrial engineeringSystems engineeringMachine learningData miningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predictive analytics have been used to improve efficiency and productivity in the construction industry by leveraging the insights from historical data with a variety of applications in project management. In the planning process of heavy industrial construction projects, mobile crane selection plays a critical role in the project’s success, and poor choice of mobile crane configurations can lead to unnecessary cost-overrun and delayed schedules. In this research, the authors propose a predictive analytics framework for crane configuration selection using combined heuristic search and artificial neural network (ANN) approaches for heavy industrial construction projects. The heuristic search allows the practitioners to select the crane configurations based on engineering rules, while the ANN model utilizes the historical project data to help select crane configurations. The K-fold cross-validation is conducted to validate the designed ANN model and improve the accuracy of predictions. The results from the cross-validation test set have shown 70% accuracy.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuildingsSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207