MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402148723 · doi:10.1061/jcemd4.coeng-14837

Critical Review of Virtual Reality Applications in Offsite Construction Research

2024· article· en· W4402148723 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Assaf, Mohamed Al‐Hussein, Xinming Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Construction Engineering and Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtual realityComputer scienceArchitectural engineeringHuman–computer interactionConstruction engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Offsite construction (OSC) techniques are argued to provide superior quality and shorter schedules compared with traditional techniques. Nonetheless, the pace of OSC implementation has been slow due to the influence of several barriers. In recent years, virtual reality (VR) applications have been used to address many of these barriers and promote the implementation of OSC projects. However, a comprehensive and coherent literature review that establishes the current state and categorizes VR applications in OSC projects is still lacking. To address this research gap, this study provides a state-of-the-art review of VR applications in OSC (VR–OSC) using the scientometric and systematic review methods. This study characterizes the synthesis between VR and OSC and identifies research trends and gaps that can be studied in future VR–OSC research. The scientometric review focuses on identifying the main topics of both research domains separately and combined based on the collected articles. The systematic review, meanwhile, qualitatively evaluates these articles, highlighting the existing research gaps and anticipating future research frontiers. The scientometric results indicate that VR applications in OSC can be organized into a number of clusters, such as Crane Operations and Onsite Planning, Educational Applications, Safety and Ergonomics, and Evaluation of Design Alternatives. The qualitative analysis identifies several future research directions to advance the field of VR–OSC, including (1) multiuser VR models in crane operation planning, (2) consideration of the role of human emotions in VR safety training by adopting biometric sensors, (3) decentralized web-VR platforms for remote OSC planning, and (4) VR-solutions for modeling robotic movements in OSC factories. This study can serve as a useful point of reference for VR–OSC researchers and provides a sound foundation for future research on VR–OSC.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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