MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398775382 · doi:10.1061/jcemd4.coeng-14227

Sustainability in Prefabricated Construction: Enhancing Multicriteria Analysis and Prediction Using Machine Learning

2024· article· en· W4398775382 on OpenAlexaff
Jaemin Jeong, Jaewook Jeong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Construction Engineering and Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityComputer scienceMachine learningEngineeringArtificial intelligenceArchitectural engineeringConstruction engineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multicriteria analysis is widely used to prove the excellence of prefabricated construction compared with conventional construction. However, because previous studies have not presented the results of an integrated analysis, identifying the merits of prefabricated construction is challenging. Furthermore, clients experience difficulty when considering prefabricated construction owing to the complexity of simulations and the lack of data. Therefore, this study aimed to conduct a multicriteria analysis for prefabricated construction considering productivity, safety, environment, and economy, and develop a multi-prediction model. This study was conducted in five stages. Results revealed that prefabricated construction was superior to conventional construction for all variables, with the former scoring 0.0927 on average and the latter scoring 1.863. The multiprediction model utilizing a decision tree and Bayesian optimization has a high performance, achieving over 94%. Using study findings, decision makers can use the multiprediction model to assess the expected performance of prefabricated construction. This enables a comprehensive comparison of various conditions across different aspects through the multicriteria analysis.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Construction Engineering and ManagementSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207