MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311884401 · doi:10.3390/buildings12122242

Towards a Data-Rich Era: A Bibliometric Analysis of Construction Management from 2000 to 2020

2022· article· en· W4311884401 on OpenAlexaff
Shi‐Yao Zhu, Dezhi Li, Zhu Jin, Haibo Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Social Science Fund of ChinaNational Office for Philosophy and Social SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsData managementData scienceBig dataField (mathematics)Computer scienceDomain (mathematical analysis)Technology managementKnowledge managementEmerging technologiesEngineering managementManagement scienceEngineeringData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid development of new technologies has made the acquisition and processing of big data much easier and more accessible to various domains including construction management. This trend has resulted in numerous new technical or management issues in the field, as well as increased research needs. Thus, it is very necessary to invest and assess the past, present, and possible future developments of construction management-related studies. This paper provides a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the articles published in this field over the previous two decades. The seven most popular research themes were identified and discussed with the data adopted in the related studies, including modern technology, waste management, performance management, risk management, project management, knowledge management, and organization management. Typical research data, research approaches, and future research directions were discussed. Emerging topics such as smart technology, sustainability, resilience, and human factors are suggested to be further explored in the domain. The review conducted in this study can provide some insights into what has been done and what can be achieved in future research in the construction management domain towards a data-rich era.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0800.336
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuildingsSame topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207