MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6891509823 · doi:10.4224/20374669

The Return on Investment from BIM-driven Projects in Construction

2012· report· en· W6891509823 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2012
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReturn on investmentInvestment (military)Value (mathematics)Construction industryQuantitative analysis (chemistry)Value for moneyQualitative analysisMeasure (data warehouse)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report is about how the ROI has been interpreted and compiled by a number of construction companies that have utilized BIM in their projects. Based on real life construction data, the perceived value of BIM has been derived. It focuses on quantifiable benefits as well as the costs associated with BIM's usage at the project level. Our study concludes that companies, in general, use dissimilar metrics for measuring the ROI, which includes qualitative measures also. This study pins down tangible ROI measures, quantitative in nature, which may be used by most companies contemplating the use of BIM.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCFrench-language works237,207