MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321275887 · doi:10.17148/ijarcce.2023.12205

Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Construction Industry – A Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4321275887 on OpenAlexaff
Avaneesh Mohapatra, Abdul Rahman Mohammed, Smrutirekha Panda

Bibliographic record

VenueIJARCCE · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersKalinga Institute of Industrial Technology
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Reliability (semiconductor)Risk analysis (engineering)Applications of artificial intelligenceEngineeringComputer scienceSystems engineeringConstruction engineeringEngineering managementArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) is crucial in promoting Industry 4.0 worldwide. AI has the potential to revolutionize the engineering and construction industry by automating tasks, improving project efficiency and accuracy, and enabling new capabilities. One application of AI in engineering and construction is in the design and planning phase of projects. AI algorithms can analyse data from previous projects and make recommendations for optimal designs, materials, and construction methods. This can lead to cost savings and improved project outcomes. AI can also be used in the construction phase to assist with surveying, quality control, and equipment maintenance tasks. For example, drones equipped with AI can survey construction sites and generate accurate 3D models, which can be used for progress tracking and identifying potential issues. Another area where AI can have a significant impact is in operation and maintenance of buildings. AI-powered building management systems can optimize energy usage, detect and diagnose equipment malfunctions, and predict maintenance needs. Overall, integrating AI into engineering and construction can improve project efficiency, reduce costs, and increase the safety and reliability of projects. However, it is essential to consider the ethical implications of using AI in the industry, such as potential job displacement and the need for proper training and oversight.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIJARCCESame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207