Predicting and managing risk interactions and systemic risks in infrastructure projects using machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infrastructure projects often encounter performance challenges, such as cost overruns and safety issues, due to complex risk interactions and systemic risks. Existing literature treats risk interactions and systemic risks separately and relies on models that struggle with nonlinearities, adaptability, and practical applications, leading to suboptimal risk management. To address this gap, this paper uses machine learning (ML) algorithms to analyze historical project data and predict the impacts of risk interactions and systemic risks on future projects. The results show that ML-based models provide accurate and practical data-driven predictions of project performance under risk interactions and systemic risks. These findings are valuable for infrastructure project managers seeking to improve risk mitigation strategies and project outcomes. The paper lays also the foundation for future research on leveraging advanced predictive analytics in managing complex project risks more effectively. • Risk interactions and systemic risks are imperative for efficient risk management. • Existing models are impractical and involve complex simulations. • Data-driven model for risk interactions and systemic risk assessment is introduced. • Practical risk analysis approach to address overlooked risk assessment dimensions. • Intuitive model architecture for risk prediction.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".