Machine Learning–Based Bayesian Framework for Interval Estimate of Unsafe-Event Prediction in Construction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Construction safety is a critical concern for industry and academia, and numerous models and algorithms have been developed to predict incidents or accidents to facilitate proactive decision-making. However, previous studies have been limited due to the inability to account for uncertainties because predictions are given as a single value (i.e., Yes or No) and the failure to integrate subjective judgment. To address these limitations, this research proposes a machine learning–based Bayesian framework for predicting construction incidents using interval estimates. This framework combines a state-of-the-art machine-learning algorithm with a binary Bayesian inference model to develop an incident predictor that considers a range of project characteristics and conditions. Notably, this framework also is capable of incorporating historical or subjective judgment through prior selection and outputs the unsafe event prediction as an interval of possibilities, thus accounting for various uncertainties. The efficacy of our framework was demonstrated in a real-life case study, showcasing its practical implications for proactive decision-making and risk management in the construction industry and representing a valuable contribution to the field of construction safety.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".