Scientometric analysis and critical review on the application of deep learning in the construction industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of deep learning in construction has attracted increasing attention among researchers in recent years. In this review article, comprehensive scientometric analysis and critical review were performed to analyze the state-of-the-art literature on the application of deep learning in construction. This research used the science mapping method to quantitatively and systematically analyze 423 related bibliographic records retrieved from the Scopus database, and further, a critical review was performed on the collected themes of all the related publications. The results of the critical review indicate that deep convolution neural networks, you only look once, single-shot detectors, recurrent neural networks, residual neural networks, and fast region-based convolution neural networks have been the most widely used deep-learning methods in the construction industry. The most commonly addressed problems in the construction industry using deep-learning methods include classification of construction equipment, worker's safety helmet detection, ergonomics analysis, image enhancement, and feature extraction. This paper provides an in-depth understanding and big-picture overview of the existing literature along with the challenges and future direction of research on deep learning in construction.
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 | 0.086 | 0.317 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.126 | 0.083 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".