MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W89732604 · doi:10.22260/isarc2013/0086

Impact of Building Information Modeling on Just-in-Time Material Delivery

2013· article· en· W89732604 on OpenAlexaff
Iloabuchi Alex Ocheoha, Osama Moselhi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... ISARC · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterial flowComputer scienceMaterials managementBuilding information modelingDelivery PerformanceScheduling (production processes)ProductivityProcess (computing)Manufacturing engineeringReliability engineeringProcess managementOperations managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this research is to evaluate the impact of Building Information Modeling (BIM) on Just-In-Time (JIT) material delivery, with a focus on how the use of BIM can help improve efficient implementation of JIT and reduce the cost of material management.Previous research and a number of case studies have addressed the positive impact of BIM on construction at large but none focused on JIT in construction.This paper presents a methodology for selecting reliable material vendors.It also utilises the integration of BIM and scheduling software to generate quantities of material and its required delivery time to improve the flow process and improve its reliability to minimise related delays and productivity losses arising from idle and non-productive time of equipment and labour on jobsites.4D visualization is utilized to support coordination and timing of JIT material deliveries in an effort to minimize congestion on job sites.Case studies on JIT material deliveries are presented and the impact of BIM implementation on reducing the cost of material management is evaluated.The joint effect of BIM and JIT on quality control, elimination of waste, reduction of inventory buffers, and on relationships with material vendors are evaluated by analysing and comparing data from case studies.The paper also presents a methodology based on multi-attribute decision criteria for modelling the selection criteria for material vendors.The model can assist in ranking vendors not only based on cost and quality but also on their reliability in delivering material on time.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ... ISARCSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207