An empirical evaluation of the causes leading to binding dispute resolution mechanisms in the Quebec construction industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Construction disputes may arise from various situations and have varied consequences throughout the project life cycle. Whilst previous studies examined the leading causes of disputes, there is still a lack of understanding of the differences between the various disputes in terms of severity, probable implications, and outcomes. Specifically, once disputes reach a stage where they must be resolved through binding dispute resolution methods (DRMs), little research has been conducted to understand the impact of these DRMs on project outcomes. The research presented in this paper sought to establish which causes of disputes lead to binding DRMs. A sequential exploratory research design was adopted. First, interviews were conducted with nine construction experts in Quebec, Canada, to evaluate the potential of linking specific causes of disputes with the escalation to binding DRMs. The second phase involved collecting and analysing data from 94 participants through a survey. The findings revealed that unforeseen changes, lack of communication, ambiguities in contract documents, design errors, and work progress delays were the most commonly associated causes of reaching binding DRMs. The paper concluded that alternative approaches such as relational contracts, team integration, and innovative technology and communication tools should be considered to be used as preventative measures.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".