MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386976107 · doi:10.1061/jcemd4.coeng-13615

Project Schedule Acceleration Optimization Integrated with Energy Source–Based Assessment of Occupational Health and Safety Risks

2023· article· en· W4386976107 on OpenAlexaff
Ayesha Siddika, Ming Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Construction Engineering and Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaPCL Construction (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScheduleDuration (music)Critical path methodRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceProject managementProject planningOperations researchScheduling (production processes)Project portfolio managementReliability engineeringTransport engineeringEngineeringSystems engineeringOperations managementBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research devises a risk indexing method to assess the occupational health and safety (OHS) hazards associated with major sources of energy in the construction field, providing numerical inputs to project plan and schedule optimization. Further, the problem of “minimizing project schedule at lowest safety risks” (MPSLSR) is formalized to incorporate the concept of energy sources for OHS management in project planning and scheduling optimization. Instead of following commonly applied techniques to solve multiobjective optimization problems, the proposed research takes an alternative two-step approach to minimizing project duration and risk index, based on interpretation of path float in connection with the critical path method. This results in optimized project schedules that mitigate the substantial increment of OHS-related risks due to accelerating construction progress on projects through avoiding the incurrences of unnecessary activity time crashing and associated increases in OHS-related risks. The research application is demonstrated with (1) a tunnel construction project and (2) a made-up project featuring a large, complex network model.

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Construction Engineering and ManagementSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207