An advanced exploration of functionalities as the underlying principles of construction control metrics
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
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it