SWOT Analysis of Extended Reality in Architecture Engineering and Construction Organizations
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
This paper proposes SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat) based criteria to evaluate the usefulness of Extended Reality (XR) in Architecture, engineering, and Construction (AEC) organizations, using XR literature in the AEC industry for the period 2018 to 2022, inclusive. A SWOT matrix is developed using thematic analysis to highlight the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with XR in AEC organizations. A total of 105 articles were identified and analyzed from literature using a structured process in a spreadsheet matrix. A total of 22 criteria were developed and described 5 criteria for strength, 6 criteria for weakness, 6 criteria for opportunities, and 5 criteria for threats. The developed criteria are proposed to aid AEC organizations in achieving their strategic goal for the implementation of XR technologies. This paper identifies criteria that may be useful to XR researchers and industry practitioners.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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.
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