Methodology for Extended Reality–Enabled Experimental Research in Construction Engineering and Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extended reality (XR) technologies are increasingly being used as a novel research instrument to facilitate scientific inquires in the construction engineering and management (CEM) domain. By allowing humans to interact with immersive environments in controlled and monitored experimental settings, XR technologies have opened new opportunities for researchers to conduct CEM research involving human participants or concerning human behavior. Yet, XR-enabled research, as an independent, rigorous methodology for the CEM domain, is still underexplored. This paper serves as an effort to build an organized knowledge base and workflow for using XR technologies in various CEM research areas and methodological contexts. The paper first investigates the status quo of XR-enabled CEM research, by identifying current research areas in the CEM domain where XR technologies are considered the preferred or recommended methodological solutions. A process model for XR-enabled research is then proposed, with actionable recommendations about how XR-enabled research should be planned, designed, implemented, analyzed, verified, and validated. This process model is demonstrated with two illustrative case studies. Last, the paper discusses the philosophical, methodological, and technological roots of the evolution of XR-enabled CEM research and describes our vision of more enabling, adoptable, and value-adding XR-enabled research in CEM in the near future.
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 | 0.080 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".