MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392199488 · doi:10.18280/mmep.110212

Losses Resulting from Exceeding the Specified Time for Completion and Its Impact on the Status of the Project and Delay in Utilizing Services

2024· article· en· W4392199488 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdulrahman Al-Mafrachi, Sepanta Naimi

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompletion (oil and gas wells)Computer sciencePsychologyEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research is executed to explore the substantial impacts of delay problems in construction projects and highlight some novel practices and solutions that could mitigate this issue.The research implemented two study methods, including quantitative and qualitative approaches.A third research approach, representing a case study of a building in Iraq, is analyzed via REVIT quantity take-off to compare the accuracy and delay problem between hand calculations and the REVIT method.The results revealed that the delay problem caused cost overrunning, losses in resources, rework, and customer dissatisfaction.Also, the findings indicated that active communication, effective teamwork, efficient support from top management, and robust project planning are important to resolve the delay issue.Further, the use of modern delay management techniques is vital to avoid financial and resource losses.The results also indicated that the projects' activities should be tracked in accordance with their executions to help detect delays.Moreover, the results confirmed that utilizing the REVIT software for quantity take-off of steel, excavation, and concrete is greatly helpful, accurate, effortless, and could reduce significant human errors.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207