Investigating the Use of ChatGPT for the Scheduling of Construction Projects
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
Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (GPT) language models such as ChatGPT have the potential to revolutionize the construction industry by automating repetitive and time-consuming tasks. This paper presents a study in which ChatGPT was used to generate a construction schedule for a simple construction project. The output from ChatGPT was evaluated by a pool of participants that provided feedback regarding their overall interaction experience and the quality of the output. The results show that ChatGPT can generate a coherent schedule that follows a logical approach to fulfill the requirements of the scope indicated. The participants had an overall positive interaction experience and indicated the potential of such a tool in automating many preliminary and time-consuming tasks. However, the technology still has limitations, and further development is needed before it can be widely adopted in the industry. Overall, this study highlights the advantages of using large language models and Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques in the construction industry and the need for further research.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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