MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285157518 · doi:10.1109/tii.2022.3190566

Multiobjective Evolutionary Model of the Construction Industry Based on Network Planning

2022· article· en· W4285157518 on OpenAlexaff
Dehu Yu, Qing Lv, Gautam Srivastava, Chun-Hao Chen, Jerry Chun‐Wei Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical optimizationParticle swarm optimizationComputer scienceMulti-objective optimizationPareto principleGenetic algorithmNetwork planning and designScheduling (production processes)Flexibility (engineering)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of multiobjective optimization problems, such as resources, time limits, and cost based on network planning, can lead to an intelligent construction plan, which is very important for improving the comprehensive benefit of the project. In this article, a multiobjective static network planning optimization (i.e., sNP-RTC) model is proposed to integrate the heuristic local search algorithm and adaptive operation to improve the multiobjective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO) algorithm to solve the comprehensive “resource–duration–cost” optimization problem. The results show that this algorithm can achieve a unified and comprehensive Pareto frontier compared with the genetic MOPSO, providing a new method for solving resource–duration–cost optimization problems. Moreover, a dynamic “resource–time–cost” problem model for dynamic network planning (i.e., dNP-RTC) is presented and applied to improve the multiobjective subgroup algorithm to solve the model in real time after updating the network planning parameters. Compared with the static problem, the model increases the flexibility of problem solving, is more in-line with engineering practice, saves more cost in work scheduling, and has more application value for actual project scheduling.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industrial InformaticsSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207