Systematic Review of Quantitative Risk Quantification Methods in Construction Accidents
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
Construction accidents pose significant risks to workers and the public, affecting industry productivity and reputation. While several reviews have discussed risk assessment methods, recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), big data analytics, and real-time decision support systems have created a need for an updated synthesis of the quantitative methodologies applied in construction safety. This study systematically reviews the literature from the past decade, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A thorough search identified studies utilizing statistical analysis, mathematical modeling, simulation, and artificial intelligence (AI). These methods were categorized and analyzed based on their effectiveness and limitations. Statistical approaches, such as correlation analysis, examined relationships between variables, while mathematical models, like factor analysis, quantified risk factors. Simulation methods, such as Monte Carlo simulations, explored risk dynamics and AI techniques, including machine learning, enhanced predictive modeling, and decision making in construction safety. This review highlighted the strengths of handling large datasets and improving accuracy, but also noted challenges like data quality and methodological limitations. Future research directions are suggested to address these gaps. This study contributes to construction safety management by offering an overview of best practices and opportunities for advancing quantitative risk assessment methodologies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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