Assessment of specifications' usability for engineering projects of the built environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This research compares consultants' and contractors' professional practices and perspectives on the use of specifications in the engineering of built environment projects. Design/methodology/approach The study initiates with a review of literature, toward realizing (1) the need for inclusion of specifications, throughout the projects' stages (design, tender, construction and handing over), as well as the (2) causes and effects of defective specifications in design and execution of engineered projects. Additionally (3) the study investigates the challenges and causes of specification variations to projects' design and execution. The systematic methodology adopted in this research utilizes frequency indicators, to rank and correlate the perspectives of 60 professionals, who are experienced in consulting and contracting of mega public and private projects. Findings The research considers the uncertainties and differences that could be present in engineering developments and use of design specifications for projects' execution and handing over. The two groups of experts' (consultants and contractors) perspectives are usually observed as conflicting, in practice. Practices comparison of their experiences with engineering projects' specifications usability provides unique empirical findings. The analysis and assessment of the experts' knowledge, this research addresses gaps identified in the literature, providing valuable insights. Originality/value The study provides in-depth recommendations and discusses possible trends and methods for enhancing specifications' usability in design engineering and execution of built environment projects. The analysis and recommendations present and assess experts' knowledge while bridge gaps identified from the literature.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".