An advanced exploration of functionalities as the underlying principles of construction control metrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose In academics and industry, significant efforts have been made to lead planners and control teams in evaluating project performance and control. In this context, numerous control metrics have been devised and put into practice, often with little emphasis on analyzing their underlying concepts. To cover this gap, this research aims to identify and analyze a holistic list of control metrics and their functionalities in the construction industry. Design/methodology/approach A multi-step analytical approach was conducted to achieve the study’s objectives. First, a holistic list of control metrics and their functionalities in the construction industry was identified. Second, a quantitative analysis based on social network analysis (SNA) was implemented to discover the most important functionalities. Findings The results revealed that the most important control metrics' functionalities (CMF) could differ depending on the type of metrics (lagging and leading) and levels of control. However, in general, the most significant functionalities include managing project progress and performance, evaluating the look-ahead level’s performance, measuring the reliability and stability of workflow, measuring the make-ready process, constraint management and measuring the quality of construction flow. Originality/value This research will assist the project team in getting a comprehensive sensemaking of planning and control systems and their functionalities to plan and control different dynamic aspects of the project.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".