Predictive Analytics for Early-Stage Construction Costs Estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low accuracy in the estimation of construction costs at early stages of projects has driven the research on alternative costing methods that take advantage of computing advances, however, direct implications in their use for practice is not clear. The purpose of this study was to investigate how predictive analytics could enhance cost estimation of buildings at early stages by performing a systematic literature review on predictive analytics implementations for the early-stage cost estimation of building projects. The outputs of the study are: (1) an extensive database; (2) a list of cost drivers; and (3) a comparison between the various techniques. The findings suggest that predictive analytic techniques are appropriate for practice due to their higher level of accuracy. The discussion has three main implications: (a) predictive analytics for cost estimation have not followed the best practices and standard methodologies; (b) predictive analytics techniques are ready for industry adoption; and (c) the study can be a reference for high-level decision-makers to implement predictive analytics in cost estimation. Knowledge of predictive analytics could assist stakeholders in playing a key role in improving the accuracy of cost forecast in the construction market, thus, enabling pro-active management of the project owner’s budget.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".