4.5 Article

Accident Case Retrieval and Analyses: Using Natural Language Processing in the Construction Industry

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001625

关键词

Construction accident case; Tacit knowledge; Knowledge management; Natural language processing; Information retrieval; Information extraction

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning [2017R1C1B2009237, 2017R1E1A2A01077468]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2017R1E1A2A01077468, 2017R1C1B2009237] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Knowledge management for construction accident cases can identify dangerous conditions and prevent accidents by controlling risks on-site. However, because accident cases are recorded as unstructured text data, significant time and effort are required to retrieve and analyze the knowledge a user wants. To overcome these limitations, this research proposes a knowledge management system for construction accident cases using natural language processing. For this purpose, two models were developed that can retrieve appropriate cases according to user intentions and automatically analyze tacit knowledge from construction accident cases. In the retrieval model, the query is expanded using a construction accident case thesaurus. Ranking is calculated using Okapi BM25 and weighting according to the thesaurus. In the analysis model, knowledge is automatically extracted using rule-based and conditional random field (CRF) methods. The proposed system can retrieve results that are 97% relevant to the accident cases the user intended and can automatically analyze knowledge with accuracies of 93.75% and 84.13% for the rule-based and CRF models, respectively. The results demonstrate the potential of knowledge discovery from accident reports for more-effective safety management.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据