MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384932501 · doi:10.5539/jms.v13n2p45

Identifying the Causes of Delay Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method in Brazilian Public Road Infrastructure Projects

2023· article· en· W4384932501 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management and Sustainability · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLogistics and Infrastructure Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade de Pernambuco
KeywordsAnalytic hierarchy processContext (archaeology)Consistency (knowledge bases)Process (computing)Quality (philosophy)Principal (computer security)Transport engineeringComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Operations researchEngineeringOperations managementBusinessComputer securityArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The highway infrastructure system plays an important role in a country whose continental extensions require an adequate transportation system to connect people and places and boost the economy. Delayed delivery of these projects is one of the most significant problems in the road construction industry and poses challenges to project success in terms of time, cost, quality, and safety. Some studies have carried out literature reviews, applied questionnaires and performed expert interviews, or used analytical methods such as machine learning and AHP (Analytic Hieraquircal Process) to identify factors that cause delays. The objective of this study was to identify the main delay factors in road infrastructure projects using the AHP analytic hierarchy process approach in the context of public works management in Brazil. This study consisted of two stages, the first being a search in databases and search engines, using keywords that point to studies on delay factors in road construction projects. After this, the criteria and sub-criteria were examined and classified, and the factors and causes of delays were ranked based on discussions with an expert and the application of a questionnaire, according to the AHP methodology. The supporting software used was SuperDecisions. The main factors (criteria) and sub-factors (sub-criteria) that influence delay were categorized according to the literature. The main factors were compiled into five criteria called: principal contractor, designer, manager, material/manpower/equipment, and external factors. Within these groups, 24 sub-factors that most influenced delay were initially selected. But after the consistency tests were not acceptable, a new selection was made, which considered in the analysis the 15 most influential sub-factors. According to the experts, the order of importance was: Contractor>External Factors>Materials>Manpower and Equipment>Manager>Designer. The most important sub-criterion according to the specialists in causing delays in Brazilian road infrastructure projects was climate. The study pointed out which factors should have priority in decision-making to avoid delays in public, government-funded road transportation projects in Brazil. By applying it, one can arrive at the variables that can be used to develop a prediction model that helps mitigate the risks of delay in public road infrastructure projects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.284 · 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