Duration Estimation of a Heavy Industrial Scaffolding Project: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate project duration estimation is crucial for effective scheduling, budgeting, resource allocation, and overall construction management. Leveraging historical data from completed projects is an effective strategy to achieve this. In heavy industrial projects, where scaffolding activities can span from thousands to millions of hours, refining the estimation of scaffolding time is vital during the planning phase. This study undertook the analysis of data from a completed heavy industrial scaffolding project, aiming to propose a methodology and models for predicting future projects durations. The proposed methodology not only aids in improved duration but also contributes to cost estimation, scheduling, and project delivery of similar future endeavors. Commencing with data cleaning and categorizing the data based on activity types, the scatter plots of person-hours versus task weight within each category revealed a linear relationship. Consequently, linear models for each category were developed. Statistical factors such as data size, coefficient of determination, and mean absolute error were then utilized to calculate a score for each model, guiding the model selection process which substituted low score models with a parent category with a higher score. The data analysis and modeling were performed five times to ensure robustness and consistency in the results. On average, the initial models yielded a project duration estimate of only 0.36% higher than the actual duration, while the selected models increased this deviation to 4.14%. The scoring and selection process enhances estimation accuracy while maintaining proximity to actual project durations. This research makes three significant contributions: (1) introducing a categorical linear regression approach for scaffolding activity duration prediction, (2) presenting a novel normalization and scoring method that scores models based on statistical factors, and (3) implementing a practical model selection process to substitute weaker models with stronger ones, ultimately strengthening the reliability of activity and project duration predictions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".