MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412101857 · doi:10.13189/cea.2025.131336

Review of the Modular Construction System

2025· article· en· W4412101857 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julio Casimiro, Brigitte Montalvo, Manuel Laurencio

Bibliographic record

VenueCivil Engineering and Architecture · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModular designModular constructionEngineeringConstruction engineeringSystems engineeringComputer scienceArchitectural engineeringEngineering managementOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modular masonry has emerged as a technological innovation in the construction industry, offering solutions to improve efficiency in projects. In Chile, this method has been developed and patented thanks to the Society of Innovation for Construction (SIC), showing promising results that have led to its adoption in other countries. This approach seeks to reduce costs and improve accuracy in construction, using plastic connectors and spacers in hollow bricks to facilitate the reinforcement of walls. The introduction of modular steel reinforcement has been shown to increase strength and speed up the construction process, and has been patented in multiple countries. The discussion compares modular masonry to traditional masonry, highlighting its speed, economic efficiency and environmental options. Although procurement and transportation of components can present challenges, its versatile design and ability to build in a variety of environments make it a viable option. In addition, significant growth in modular construction is projected in countries, such as the United States, Canada, China, Egypt, and the United Kingdom, where it is expected to increase in market value and the implementation of industrialized buildings to promote sustainability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.007

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.158
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCivil Engineering and ArchitectureSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207