MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409046432 · doi:10.36680/j.itcon.2025.019

A review of machine learning for analysing accident reports in the construction industry

2025· review· en· W4409046432 on OpenAlex
May Shayboun, Dimosthenis Kifokeris, Christian Koch

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Information Technology in Construction · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Computer scienceCLARITYArtificial intelligenceMachine learningStructuringUnstructured dataUnsupervised learningData scienceAccident (philosophy)Natural language processingData miningBig data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, there has been a growth in the research interest on applied machine learning (ML) in safety analysis in the construction industry. The increased interest is part of a search for improved prevention of occupational accidents with a focus on text analysis and natural language processing (NLP). However, ML-based approaches have been less adapted compared to their perceived benefits due to barriers of implementation and challenges in analysing safety records in the construction sector. And the current literature has been criticized for a lack of clarity around the description of methodologies, interpretation, and the context of the application. Therefore, this work aims to review the latest developments in research applying ML to accident report analysis in construction. A review of the published literature on ML-based analysis of construction accident reports was carried out and organized in terms of the data pre-processing, algorithms, testing and implementation and further organized based on data structure. The results of the review found limitation related to data availability besides the manual structuring and the less use of unsupervised learning reflect complexity of handling textual accident data. Moreover, types of accidents happen in proportionally varying frequencies and need careful tackling outside basic assumptions of data pre-processing in addition to the general need for data pre-processing comparative studies and automated pipelines. The review also showed that data mining (DM) and unsupervised learning were less used especially with semi-structured and unstructured datasets reflecting maybe inefficient natural language processing (NLP) application with these types of learning. Among the reviewed articles, only four out of six prototypes were externally validated on construction environment thus we propose that future efforts would benefit from incorporating a standardized development method that also explicit how ML safety recommendation informs decision making. Future research should experiment and ascertain different choices in the pre-processing stage, validating the performance of the ML models and implementation in the construction practices. Finally, there are more advanced NLP methods that could be applied if domain specific repositories were available such as relation extraction and there are various advances that could be explored including large language models (LLMs).

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.435 · 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