Blockchain Technology toward Smart Construction: Review and Future Directions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The construction industry has been criticized for low productivity, lack of collaboration and information sharing, poor contract administration, and the like due to its decentralized and fragmented structure as well as sequential and chain-resembling nature. Recently, blockchain technology and its benefits have received wide attention and interest. This research synthesizes the research trends and needs of this growing area by means of a bibliometric-qualitative review method. Scopus and Web of Science were selected as the literature databases to retrieve relevant academic publications. Through a systematic literature search and screening, 181 related articles were identified for bibliometric analysis, and 149 publications were critically discussed in a qualitative review. The bibliometric results indicated the recent research regarding blockchain in construction is primarily directed into several clusters, such as “smart contract,” “Building Information Modeling (BIM),” “supply chain management,” “construction contract,” “construction and project management,” “digital twin,” and “smart city.” These clusters were further synthesized for a qualitative review revealing deep insight into research challenges and gaps. Both quantitative and qualitative review results were then mapped to the future directions. It was noted that future research needs to focus on (1) quantifying the cost-benefits of the blockchain applications in construction, e.g., return on investment, practitioners training, and improving industry readiness, (2) integration of blockchain with different project delivery systems, and (3) technology fusion with blockchain for construction management.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it