Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The construction industry has been identified as one of the most dangerous when examining safety performance and outcomes. The concept of leveraging off-site construction as a safer alternative to execute construction works has been presented by researchers and industry, but support for this premise with quantifiable data is lacking. To investigate differences in off-site construction versus conventional on-site methods, the research has developed a safety evaluation methodology to quantify safety performance and allow for comparisons of construction methods. The methodology is developed in partnership with a jurisdictional occupational health and safety authority and leverages historical safety data to provide inputs for a risk-based process-analysis of construction methods. The methodology is partially validated in collaboration with the project team (owner, general contractor, module manufacturer) and applied to a case study of a mid-rise modular hotel construction project that employed a mix of conventional and off-site construction processes. The evaluation methodology takes a construction product-focused approach (in this a case a hotel room module) with emphasis on defining a complete material supply chain. As such, the approach takes a unique approach to industry level comparison, establishing an evaluation methodology for future comparisons.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".