Adoption of Artificial Intelligence for Optimum Productivity in the Construction Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The construction sector has begun to embrace the digital revolution, intending to improve efficiency. How, on the other hand, should the industry adopt digital tools? And how should the connection between humans and technology function? This study aims to shed light on how the construction sector may bridge the gap between AI deployments’s potential and realized advantages. This article presents research based on a comprehensive review of the literature, case studies of Speller Metcalfe, a design-build and refurbishment project in Malvern, England, Jacobsen Construction, a project digitizing the planning process in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, and Menkes Development Inc., real-time visibility to construction site insights and data-driven decision-making in Toronto, Canada. The experiences gained via this study show that it is feasible to acquire expertise while adopting sophisticated technologies, such as artificial intelligence, by installing fundamental digital tools (AI). However, when it comes to AI, the level of trust between humans and machines will be the deciding element in its success. This article is a pioneering effort in examining the deployment of AI and how people and technology should interact. This study is limited to three case studies and three digital technologies. To further the study, it is suggested to debate the adaptation of AI on the user's premises, gather more empirical data, and examine case studies from different sectors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".