4.7 Article

Improving the accuracy of schedule information communication between humans and data

期刊

ADVANCED ENGINEERING INFORMATICS
卷 53, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.aei.2022.101645

关键词

Construction schedules; Information exchange; Semi-structured data; Ontology

资金

  1. InnovateUK [104795]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes an ontology-based Recurrent Neural Network approach to bi-directionally translate between human written language and machinery ontological language. Experimental results show that the proposed approach has good performance in text generation accuracy, machine readability, and human understandability.
Construction schedules are written instructions of construction execution shared between stakeholders for essential project information exchange. However, construction schedules are semi-structured data that lack semantic details and coherence within and across projects. This study proposes an ontology-based Recurrent Neural Network approach to bi-directionally translate between human written language and machinery ontological language. The proposed approach is assessed in three areas: text generation accuracy, machine readability, and human understandability. This study collected 30 project schedules with 19,589 activities (sample size = 19,589) from a Tier-1 contractor in the UK. The experimental results indicate that: (1) precision and recall of text generation LSTM-RNN model is 0.991 and 0.874, respectively; (2) schedule readability improved by increasing the semantic distinctiveness, measured using the cosine similarity which was reduced from 0.995 to 0.990 (p < 0.01); (3) schedule understandability improved from 75.90% to 85.55%. The proposed approach formalises text descriptions in construction schedules and other construction documents with less labour investment. It supports contractors to establish knowledge management systems to learn from historic data and make more informed decisions in future similar scenarios.

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

4.7
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