Data- and Knowledge-Driven Cycle Time Estimation in Offsite Construction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cycle times at workstations in offsite construction factories fluctuate widely due to various influencing factors. Consequently, relying on average rates, such as length per unit of time, for estimating cycle times proves to be inaccurate, often leading to significant deviations between production schedules and actual operations. To address this issue, this study proposes an estimation system that leverages machine-learning-based prediction, statistical methods, 3D simulation, and computer vision to predict cycle times at the workstation level. Testing of the system on a semi-automated wood-wall framing workstation in a panelized construction factory shows that it reduces the mean absolute error and sum of errors by approximately 36% and 68%, respectively, compared to the fixed rate method. The results also highlight the efficacy of using computer vision data for training machine-learning models for cycle time estimation, the importance of identifying and understanding the factors influencing cycle times, and the impact of random delays on the accuracy of cycle time estimation systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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".