MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416582103 · doi:10.1080/17452007.2025.2592866

Redefining the critical path: design-engineering interfaces and productization in mass timber construction

2025· article· en· W4416582103 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ivana Kuzmanovska, Duncan Maxwell, Milad Baghalzadeh Shishehgarkhaneh, Robert Moehler

Bibliographic record

VenueArchitectural Engineering and Design Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsConstruction industryArchitectureCritical mass (sociodynamics)Work (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates how varying degrees of productization – from prefabricated panels to multitrade volumetric elements – reshape the critical path in mass timber construction. The research is significant because, although mass timber’s adoption has accelerated globally, its implications for design management and project delivery remain underexplored. The study aims to examine how productization influences construction sequencing, coordination, and risk while developing a framework for understanding its effect on project delivery. The novelty lies in mapping prefabricated elements along axes of scale and complexity to reveal how productization shifts decision-making upstream and demands closer alignment between architectural intent, engineering detail, and site logistics. Employing a comparative analysis of six projects across Australia and Canada, the research integrates qualitative interviews and document-based evidence to identify recurring patterns and challenges. The findings reveal that (1) productization redefines the critical path by front-loading design and manufacturing processes; (2) higher component complexity improves on-site efficiency but limits design flexibility; and (3) Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) is essential for mitigating coordination risks. The study offers architects, engineers, and construction managers a practical framework and empirical insights to enhance integration, efficiency, and scalability in industrialized timber construction.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.181 · 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
GenreMethods

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 venueArchitectural Engineering and Design ManagementSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207