On-site workshop investment problem: A novel mathematical approach and solution procedure
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In real-world construction sites, On-Site Workshops (OSW) are installed to accelerate construction activities and facilitate the material handling process. These temporary OSWs are cost-effective, leading to decreasing the material handling cost and project makespan, which indicates their important role as a part of a construction project. However, considering the OSW, which has not been addressed in the project scheduling problems, requires the construction site to have a space capacity constraint while considering the workshop size, availability level, and other project-related constraints. In the present work, by considering the OSWs, a real construction project scheduling problem is studied as a Multi-Mode On-Site Workshop Investment Problem with Tardiness (MOSWIPT) while finding the installation/dismantling time of the OSWs. Two new (linear) mathematical programming models are proposed for MOSWIPT. Next, due to the NP-hardness of the problem, an enhanced Genetic Algorithm (GA)-based metaheuristic with efficient problem-specific improvement rules as local search and effective crossover and mutation operators is proposed. Computational experiments show that the proposed method has solved most of the instances of the addressed problem to optimality and outperformed the existing metaheuristics, e.g., Simulated Annealing (SA) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). Finally, conclusions and suggestions for future studies are stated.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 it