Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 53 references

An Approach to Twinning and Mining Collaborative Network of Construction Projects

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read An upgraded construction-management app's issue-forward logs can be turned into a directed collaboration network, and mining that network recovers hubs, brokers, frequent pairs, and task-level information-flow rules.

desk verdict A clear, reproducible pipeline for building a directed multi-edge collaboration graph from mobile inspection logs, but the 'twinning' claim runs ahead of the data because only one communication channel was logged and never validated as representative. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09486 v1 pith:AQLLINIU submitted 2024-11-14 cs.SI

Jia-Rui Lin , Da-Peng Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SI
keywords socialnetworkanalysisdigitaltwingraphvisualizationfrequentlycollaboratingusersassociationrulesinformationflowpatternsconstructionprojectscentralitymeasures
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a construction project's collaboration network can be recreated and mined automatically from logs that an upgraded mobile management app already produces during normal on-site inspection work. It would matter because construction problems are often traced to missing or delayed information, and a continuously updated map of who sends issues to whom could tell managers whom to support, whom to watch, and which pairs already work well together. In a case study of roughly 7,800 issue records, the framework built a 226-user, 17,068-edge directed network and claims it successfully found key hubs and brokers, frequently collaborating user pairs, and association rules linking information flows to task severity levels. The paper also reports that collaboration concentrates in small two- or three-person groups specialized by task level, which it offers as practical guidance for organizing construction teams.

What carries the argument

The central object is the directed multi-edge collaborative network, built by scanning each issue record, finding its forwards, creating nodes for users, and creating one directed edge per forward with the issue's timestamp, type, and severity attached. This network carries the entire argument: degree, closeness, and betweenness centralities identify hubs and brokers; information sharing frequency (ISF) and its labeled variant (LISF) count parallel edges to find frequently collaborating pairs; and Apriori, a frequent-itemset mining algorithm, treats each issue's set of directed edges as a transaction to find information-flow patterns and their link to task levels.

What would settle it

Ask all 226 users in the case study to name their five most frequent project collaborators independently, and compare those names against the top pairs from ISF/LISF and the association rules; if most named collaborators are absent from the app-log network, or if the network's hub and broker rankings change when a channel-complete log (phone, face-to-face, email) is added for the same period, then the claim that the logged network is the collaboration network is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a fine-grained collaborative network of a construction project can be 'twinned'—reconstructed as a directed multi-edge graph—automatically by instrumenting an existing mobile management system so that every forwarded on-site issue is logged with its creator, sender, receiver, and time. In the reported case study, this produced a network with 226 user-nodes and 17,068 directed edges from 7,250 cleaned issue records, and the subsequent analysis identified hubs via degree and closeness centrality, brokers via betweenness centrality, frequently collaborating user pairs via ISF/LISF thresholds, and association rules showing that issue records are typically sent back and forth within small two- or three-person groups whose membership is tied to task severity levels.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every meaningful collaboration on the studied tasks flows through issue-forward records in the upgraded MobileCM app; the paper itself notes that only on-site inspection functions were instrumented, so off-app communication such as phone calls or face-to-face talks is invisible to the network.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Managers can obtain a continuously updated collaboration map without questionnaires, because the same app used for daily inspection also records the information flows.
  • Degree and closeness rankings point to the users who carry the most information and the coordinators who can spread it fastest, while betweenness rankings point to brokers whose absence would split communication between groups.
  • Setting an ISF or LISF threshold turns the dense multi-edge graph into a weighted simple graph whose heavy edges name the pairs that actually resolve issues together, by severity level.
  • The high-lift association rules give a predictive handle: when an issue arrives at one member of a frequent pair, it will almost certainly be sent back to the originator, and this back-and-forth is strongest within specific task levels.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same pipeline should transfer to any organization whose work is tracked as issue records with sender and receiver logs, such as software bug trackers, facility help desks, or hospital task systems; its real test is whether logged-forward structure matches ground-truth collaboration in those settings.
  • The paper's small-group finding suggests a testable management intervention: deliberately organizing teams into stable dyads or triads for each task level should reduce information delay if the pattern is causal rather than merely descriptive.
  • A natural robustness check would be to compare the ISF-ranked pairs against a short interview or survey of the same 226 users; low agreement would indicate that the network captures app usage rather than collaboration as a whole.
  • The association-rule step could be extended to temporal process mining, predicting which user will receive an issue next based on the path so far, which the paper's confidence rules imply but do not implement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an integrated framework for automatically collecting, preprocessing, and analyzing collaboration data from a construction project, with the goal of 'twinning' a fine-grained collaborative network and mining it for key players, frequently collaborating users (FCUs), and association rules between information flows and task levels. The framework is implemented by instrumenting an existing mobile app (MobileCM) to log issue-forward records, cleaning and joining the records into a directed multigraph with 226 nodes and 17,068 edges, and then applying centrality measures, two newly defined frequency measures (ISF and LISF), and the Apriori algorithm. In a case study of one large project, the authors report top hubs and brokers (users #255, #62, #65), several frequently collaborating user pairs and groups, and association rules showing bidirectional issue transfers within small groups, some labeled by task severity. The paper concludes that the framework was successfully validated and that it provides decision-making insights for construction collaboration management.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper makes a practical contribution by showing how routine system logs can be turned into a fine-grained, directed, multi-edge person-to-person network without questionnaire-based data collection. The ISF and LISF measures are simple and easy to apply, and the use of Apriori on edge-level transactions is a reasonable way to discover recurring flow patterns. The data-cleaning and network-creation steps are described in enough detail to be reproduced in similar settings, which is a definite strength. However, the significance for the broader claim of 'twinning the collaborative network of a construction project' is conditional: the case study demonstrates mining of the MobileCM issue-forward network, but it does not establish that this network faithfully represents collaboration as a whole. The paper's own limitation statement in Section 5 concedes that only on-site inspection functions were instrumented.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Section 5] The central claim that the framework twins the collaborative network of a construction project is not supported by the data collection design. Section 3.1 states that only the time, creator, sender, and receiver of each on-site inspection issue forward are collected, and Section 5 concedes that only on-site inspection functions were updated. Face-to-face meetings, phone calls, email, paper documents, and other communication channels are not captured. Table 2 also shows that 483 of 709 registered users are dropped after cleaning, with no analysis of whether these users participate in collaboration outside MobileCM. As a result, the centrality rankings, FCU groups, and association rules are systematically conditional on the app-usage channel. The paper should either reframe the contribution as mining the MobileCM forwarding network or provide evidence about the completeness and representativeness of the logged records relative to actual collaboration.
  2. [Section 4, opening paragraph and Section 4.1] The paper repeatedly states that the proposed framework was 'validated' in a large-scale project, but the validation is limited to consistency with workflow expectations and the anecdotal confirmation by project leaders that user #62 is a key safety engineer. No independent ground truth is provided for hubs, brokers, or FCUs, and no holdout or cross-check against another data source (e.g., interviews with a broader set of users, organizational charts, or alternative communication logs) is reported. This makes the case study a demonstration rather than a validation. The language in the abstract and conclusion should be softened to 'demonstrated' or the authors should add a formal validation step.
  3. [Table 3 and Table 4] There is an inconsistency between the reported average degree and the degree centrality calculations. Table 3 reports an average degree of 75.5 for a network with 226 nodes and 17,068 directed edges; if degree is counted as in-degree plus out-degree, the mean degree is 151.0. The value 75.5 appears to correspond to unique neighbors after merging parallel edges, whereas Table 4 reports degree centrality values such as 2371 for user #255, which count each directed edge separately. These are two different graph views (multigraph versus simple graph), and the paper should state which view is used for each reported statistic. Without this clarification, the network-level and node-level interpretations are ambiguous.
  4. [Section 3.3 and Table 5] The association-rule mining results depend on hand-chosen thresholds (Smin, Cmin, Lmin) and the paper provides no sensitivity analysis. For example, Table 5 sets support at 100/7250 and 60/7250, confidence at 0.75, and lift at 3, but it is not shown how the number or composition of discovered rules changes when these thresholds vary. Since the reported patterns are, by construction, those that exceed the selected thresholds, the claim that these are robust 'hidden patterns' requires either a threshold sensitivity analysis or a statistical significance assessment (e.g., permutation tests or bootstrap confidence intervals for lift).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, text near Figure 4] The text states that approximately 3-3.7 issue-forward records were generated per issue, but the overall cleaned totals give 17,068 forwards / 7,250 issues ≈ 2.35, so the claimed range is not consistent with the aggregate data unless a subset of months is intended.
  2. [Section 4.3 and Table 6/7] The phrase 'the Apriori algorithm is proposed' is inaccurate; the Apriori algorithm is a well-known existing method. The contribution is in applying it to issue-forward itemsets, and the wording should be adjusted accordingly.
  3. [Section 3.3] The definitions of ISF and LISF in Equations (4) and (5) use a threshold inequality in the definition itself, which mixes the measure with its filtering step. It would be cleaner to define ISF and LISF as raw counts first and then introduce separate threshold parameters.
  4. [Section 4.2] The description of the LISF-based groups G1-G4 in Figure 9 is brief; for reproducibility, the authors should state the exact node pairs and level labels that define each group, since the figure alone is difficult to read in grayscale.
  5. [Section 5] The discussion section introduces interpretations about workload balance and network robustness that go beyond the reported data; these are reasonable conjectures but should be labeled as such rather than presented as direct findings.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all reported patterns are direct descriptive summaries of observed issue-forward records; the MobileCM self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is transparent and non-circular. Data collection captures the time, creator, sender, and receiver of issue forwards (Section 3.1); preprocessing builds a directed multi-graph whose edges are exactly those forwards (Section 3.2); centrality measures, ISF/LISF, and Apriori rules are computed from that graph with standard definitions (Eqs. 1-8). No parameter is fitted to a subset and then used to predict the same or a closely related quantity: the ISF_min, LISF_min, S_min, C_min, and L_min thresholds are analyst-chosen filters, and the discovered key players, FCUs, and rules are direct outputs of applying those filters to the observed data. Although ISF-based FCUs are, by construction, the edge pairs above a hand-set threshold, the paper openly defines the metric rather than fitting it, so this is an explicit operationalization, not a prediction reduced to its input. The only self-citations (e.g., [34] for the MobileCM application) identify the data-collection substrate; they are not used as evidence for any analytical result, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior author work. The concern that the graph may not represent off-system collaboration is a validity or completeness limitation, not a circularity in the derivation. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on five hand-picked thresholds and on the domain assumption that logged issue forwards fully capture collaboration. No novel physical or conceptual entities are introduced; ISF and LISF are counting measures, not models with fitted parameters.

free parameters (6)
  • ISF_min = 100
    Minimum edge count to call a user pair frequently collaborating; chosen by hand in Section 4.2, used for Figure 8.
  • LISF_min = 60
    Minimum labeled edge count for frequently-collaborating-users-by-task-level; chosen by hand in Section 4.2, used for Figure 9.
  • Smin for information flow rules = 100/7250 ≈ 0.014
    Minimum support threshold for association rules in Table 5 and Table 6.
  • Smin for labeled rules = 60/7250 ≈ 0.008
    Minimum support threshold for task-level association rules in Table 5 and Table 7.
  • Cmin = 0.75
    Minimum confidence threshold for association rules in Table 5.
  • Lmin = 3
    Minimum lift threshold for association rules in Table 5.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Issue-forward records represent collaboration and communication
    Section 3.1 states that the system collects time, creator, sender, and receiver of each issue forward; the entire network is built from these records, so any communication outside the app is invisible.
  • standard math Centrality and Apriori algorithms are valid for this network
    Equations (1)-(8) rely on standard definitions of degree, closeness, betweenness, support, confidence, and lift; no proof is needed.
  • domain assumption Severity labels (low, medium, high) are meaningful and correctly assigned
    LISF and the labeled association rules in Table 7 depend on severity labels, but the paper does not validate label quality.
  • ad hoc to paper Cleaning rules do not bias the network
    Data cleaning removed 571 issue records, 6,449 forwards, and 483 users; the paper does not analyze the excluded records, so the retained network is assumed representative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Approach to Twinning and Mining Collaborative Network of Construction Projects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AQLLINIU

@misc{pith2026241109486,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Approach to Twinning and Mining Collaborative Network of Construction Projects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AQLLINIU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09486}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding complex collaboration processes is essential for the success of construction projects. However, there is still a lack of efficient methods for timely collection and analysis of collaborative networks. Therefore, an integrated framework consisting three parts, namely, system updating for data collection, data preprocessing, and social network analysis, is proposed for the twinning and mining collaborative network of a construction project. First, a system updating strategy for automatic data collection is introduced. Centrality measures are then utilized to identify key players, including hubs and brokers. Meanwhile, information sharing frequency (ISF) and association rule mining are introduced to discover collaborative patterns, that is, frequently collaborating users (FCUs) and associations between information flows and task levels. Finally, the proposed framework is validated and demonstrated in a large-scale project. The results show that key players, FCUs, and associations between information flows and task levels were successfully discovered, providing a deep understanding of collaboration and communication for decision-making processes. This research contributes to the body of knowledge by: 1) introducing ISF and Apriori-based association mining algorithm to identify FCUs and information flow patterns in collaboration; 2) establishing a new data-driven framework to map and analyze fine-grained collaborative networks automatically. It is also shown that people tend to form small groups to handle certain levels or types of tasks more efficiently. Other researchers and industrial practitioners may use this work as a foundation to further improve the efficiency of collaboration and communication.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Forward records without a sender or receiver are also skipped

    Data cleaning: issue record s whose descriptions are empty or too short (less than 5 words in this research), and those without creation time are omitted. Forward records without a sender or receiver are also skipped. This is achieved by specifying certain constraints when querying the database. For example, the following structured query language (SQL) q...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Several studies have show n that a construction project failure is closely associated with communication between stakeholders[6]

    Overview of Related Research Construction projects are usually complex and exhibit highly fragmented operation, with intensive labor input, large investment, and extensive involvement of multiple disciplines [1]. Several studies have show n that a construction project failure is closely associated with communication between stakeholders[6]. On one hand, 5...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Methodology Construction projects consist of various tasks, which involve many stakeholders and information transfers. A digital twin of a fine-grained collaborative work could help managers and decision-makers to identify: 1) the key players involved in the collaboration, 2) any frequently collaborating users, and

    work page

  4. [4]

    any associations between information flows and types or severity levels of tasks. To twin a collaborative network of a construction project automatically and discover hidden knowledge for better decision-making, this research proposes an integrated approach to dynamically collect and quantitatively analyze collaboration data of construc tion projects. As ...

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Similarly, issue records and issue forward records should be associated too

    Data association: users involved in the project have different roles and belong to different organizations; because these data are kept in different tables, a data association process is needed to connect or join different tables. Similarly, issue records and issue forward records should be associated too. In this research, part of the data association is...

    work page

  6. [6]

    In this research, the meanings of TypeID, LevelID, RoleID, etc

    Data enrichment: raw data extracted from the database lacks semantic information for analytics purposes. In this research, the meanings of TypeID, LevelID, RoleID, etc. are added according to discussions with software developers and product managers

    work page

  7. [7]

    Network creation: to handle a certain inspected on-site issue (or a construction task), submitted issue records are usually forwarded from one user to another; that is, a small network could be formed by combining the issue record and corresponding issue forward records as well as data of involved Table of Issue Records Table of Issue Forwards Sender ID T...

    work page

  8. [8]

    278->255

    Case Study To validate the usefulness of the proposed approach for the twinning and mining of construction project collaborative network s, a realistic project in China was selected. Previously developed MobileCM was upgraded to include the components mentioned in Section 3.1 for collecting data on collaboration during the on-site inspection and resolving...

    work page 2019

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Discussion In this research, an approach to twinning and mining collaborative network s was proposed and validated in a construction project. Because of limited time, only functions related to on-site inspection of existing systems were updated, and then the collaborative netw...

  2. [10]

    Conclusion and Future Work In this research, an approach to twinning and mining collaborative network s is proposed and validated with collected collaborative data related to on -site inspection of a construction project. To fill the gap that most of collaborative network s ar...

  3. [11]

    51908323), the National Key R&D Program of China (No

    Acknowledgments This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51908323), the National Key R&D Program of China (No. 2018YFD1100900), the Tsinghua University Initiative Scientific Research Program (No. 2019Z02UOT) and the Beijing Natural Sc...

  4. [12]

    J. Lin, J. Zhang, X. Zhang, Z. Hu, Automating Closed -loop Structural Safety Management for Bridge Construction through Multisource Data Integration, Advances in Engineering Software 128 (2019) pp. 152 -168. doi: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2018.11.013

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Kopsida, I

    M. Kopsida, I. Brilakis, P.A. Vela, A Review of Automated Construction Progress Monitoring and Inspection Methods, The 32nd International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction - Information Technology for Construction (CIB W78) Conference, 2015, pp. ...

    2015

  6. [14]

    Marzouk, M

    M. Marzouk, M. Enaba, Text Analytics to Analyze and Monitor Construction Project Contract and Correspondence, Automation in Construction 98 (2019) pp. 265-274. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2018.11.018

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Garcia, D

    J.C.G. Garcia, D. Arditi, K.T. Le, Construction Progress Control (CPC) Application for Smartphones, Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITCon) 19 (5) (2014) pp. 92-103. https://www.itcon.org/2014/5

    2014

  8. [16]

    Zhang, Q

    J. Zhang, Q. Liu, Z. Hu, J. Lin, F. Yu, A Multi-server Information-sharing Environment for Cross-party Collaboration on A Private Cloud, Automation in Construction 81 (2017) pp. 180-195. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2017.06.021

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Wang, V.K

    Y. Wang, V.K. Thangasamy, Z. Hou, R.L.K. Tiong, L. Zhang, Collaborative Relationship Discovery in BIM Project Delivery: A Social Network Analysis Approach, Automation in Construction 114 (2020) pp. 103147. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103147

    2020

  10. [18]

    J. Lin, Z. Hu, J. Li, Understanding On -Site Inspection of Construction Projects based on Keyword Extraction and Topic Modeling, IEEE Access 8 (2020) pp. 198503-198517. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3035214

    2020

  11. [19]

    J. Lin, Z. Hu, J. Zhang, F. Yu, A Natural-language-based Approach to Intelligent Data Retrieval and Representation for Cloud BIM, Computer Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 31 (1) (2016) pp. 18-33. doi: 10.1111/mice.12151

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Navon, R

    R. Navon, R. Sacks, Assessing Research Issues in Automated Project Performance Control (APPC), Automation in Construction 16 (4) (2007) pp. 474-484. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2006.08.001

    2007 doi

  13. [21]

    Golparvar-Fard, J

    M. Golparvar-Fard, J. Bohn, J. Teizer, S. Savarese, F. Pe N A-Mora, Evaluation of Image-based Modeling and Laser Scanning Accuracy for Emerging Automated Performance Monitoring Techniques, Automation in Construction 20 (8) (2011) pp. 1143-1155. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2011.04.016

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    Zhang, S

    H. Zhang, S. Chi, J. Yang, M. Nepal, S. Moon, Development of A Safety Inspection Framework on Construction Sites Using Mobile Computing, Journal of Management in Engineering 33 (3) (2017) pp. 4016048. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000495

    2017

  15. [23]

    Li, An Institutional Economic Analysis on Construction Safety Knowledge Sharing and E -Learning via Mobile Apps, Construction Safety and Waste Management, Springer, 2015, pp

    R.Y.M. Li, An Institutional Economic Analysis on Construction Safety Knowledge Sharing and E -Learning via Mobile Apps, Construction Safety and Waste Management, Springer, 2015, pp. 75-91. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-12430-8_5

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    X. Xue, R. Zhang, L. Wang, H. Fan, R.J. Yang, J. Dai, Collaborative Innovation in Construction Project: A Social Network Perspective, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 22 (2) (2018) pp. 417-427. doi: 10.1007/s12205-017-1342-y

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    Y. Tang, G. Wang, H. Li, D. Cao, Dynamics of Collaborative Networks between Contractors and Subcontractors in the Construction Industry: Evidence from National Quality Award Projects in China, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 144 (9) (2018) pp. 5018009. doi: ...

    2018

  18. [26]

    Y. Tang, G. Wang, H. Li, D. Cao, X. Li, R. Akhavian, Comparing Project -Based Collaborative Networks for BIM Implementation in Public and Private Sectors: A Longitudinal Study in Hong Kong, Advances in Civil Engineering 2019 (2019) pp. 6213694. doi: 10.1155/2019/6213694

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    West, Collaborative Patterns and Power Imbalance in Strategic Alliance Networks, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 140 (6) (2014) pp

    J. West, Collaborative Patterns and Power Imbalance in Strategic Alliance Networks, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 140 (6) (2014) pp. 4014010. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000846

    2014

  20. [28]

    Park, S.H

    H. Park, S.H. Han, E.M. Rojas, J. Son, W. Jung, Social Network Analysis of Collaborative Ventures for Overseas Construction Projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 137 (5) (2011) pp. 344 -355. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000301

    2011

  21. [29]

    Pryke, Analysing Construction Project Coalitions: Exploring the Application of Social Network Analysis, Construction Management and Economics 22 (8) (2004) pp

    S.D. Pryke, Analysing Construction Project Coalitions: Exploring the Application of Social Network Analysis, Construction Management and Economics 22 (8) (2004) pp. 787-797. doi: 10.1080/0144619042000206533

    2004 doi

  22. [30]

    Lingard, P

    H. Lingard, P. Pirzadeh, D. Oswald, Talking Safety: Health and Safety Communication and Safety Climate in Subcontracted Construction Workgroups, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 145 (5) (2019) pp. 4019029. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001651

    2019

  23. [31]

    Ruan, E.G

    X. Ruan, E.G. Ochieng, A.D. Price, C.O. Egbu, Knowledge Integration Process in Construction Projects: A Social Network Analysis Approach to Compare Competitive and Collaborative Working, Construction Management and Economics 30 (1) (2012) pp. 5-19. doi: 10.1080/01446193.2011.654127

    2012

  24. [32]

    Jafari, E

    P. Jafari, E. Mohamed, S. Lee, S. Abourizk, Social Network Analysis of Change Management Processes for Communication Assessment, Automation in Construction 118 (2020) pp. 103292. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103292

    2020

  25. [33]

    El Sheikh, S.D

    A. El Sheikh, S.D. Pryke, Network Gaps and Project Success, Construction Management and Economics 28 (12) (2010) pp. 1205-1217. doi: 10.1080/01446193.2010.506643

    2010

  26. [34]

    Borgatti, P.C

    S.P. Borgatti, P.C. Foster, The Network Paradigm in Organizational Research: A Review and Typology, Journal of Management 29 (6) (2003) pp. 991-1013. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00087-4

    2003 doi

  27. [35]

    Zhang, H

    R.P. Zhang, H. Lingard, D. Oswald, Impact of Supervisory Safety Communication on Safety Climate and Behavior in Construction Workgroups, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 146 (8) (2020) pp. 4020089. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001881

    2020

  28. [36]

    S. Woo, D. Kang, S. Martin, Seaport Research: An Analysis of Research Collaboration Using Social Network Analysis, Transport Reviews 33 (4) (2013) pp. 460-475. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2013.786766

    2013

  29. [37]

    De Laat, V

    M. De Laat, V. Lally, L. Lipponen, R. Simons, Investigating Patterns of Interaction in Networked Learning and Computer-supported Collaborative Learning: A Role for Social Network Analysis, International Journal of Computer - Supported Collaborative Learning 2 (1) (2007) pp. 87...

    2007 doi

  30. [38]

    Del Monte, M.R

    A. Del Monte, M.R. D'Esposito, G. Giordano, M.P. Vitale, Analysis of Collaborative Patterns in Innovative Networks, New Perspectives in Statistical Modeling and Data Analysis, Springer, 2011, pp. 77 -84. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-11363- 5_9

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    Damian, S

    D. Damian, S. Marczak, I. Kwan, Collaboration Patterns and the Impact of Distance on Awareness in Requirements- centred Social Networks, 15th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2007), IEEE, 2007, pp. 59-

    2007

  32. [40]

    Y. Zhou, Z. Hu, J. Lin, J. Zhang, A Review on 3D Spatial Data Analytics for Building Information Models, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 27 (5) (2020) pp. 1449-1463. doi: 10.1016/10.1007/s11831-019-09356-6

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    El -Diraby, T

    T. El -Diraby, T. Krijnen, M. Papagelis, BIM -based Collaborative Design and Socio -technical Analytics of Green Buildings, Automation in Construction 82 (2017) pp. 59-74. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2017.06.004

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    Bavelas, Communication Patterns in Task-oriented Groups, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 22 (6) (1950) pp

    A. Bavelas, Communication Patterns in Task-oriented Groups, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 22 (6) (1950) pp. 725-730. doi: 10.1121/1.1906679

    1950 doi

  35. [43]

    Freeman, A Set of Measures of Centrality based on Betweenness, Sociometry (1977) pp

    L.C. Freeman, A Set of Measures of Centrality based on Betweenness, Sociometry (1977) pp. 35 -41. doi: 10.2307/3033543

    1977 doi

  36. [44]

    Mok, G.Q

    M.K.Y. Mok, G.Q. Shen, A network-theory Based Model for Stakeholder Analysis in Major Construction Projects, Procedia Engineering 164 (2016) pp. 292-298. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.11.622

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    Mazur, C

    A. Mazur, C. Doran, P. Doran, The Use of Social Network Analysis Software to Analyze Communication Patterns and Interaction in Online Collaborative Environments, International Conference on Education, Training and Informatics,(ICETI 2010), 2010

    2010

  38. [46]

    J. Lin, J. Zhang, D. Wu, B. Li, H. Gao, Application Framework for On -Site Safety and Quality Inspection based on WeChat, 17th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Tampere, Finland, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    Bastian, S

    M. Bastian, S. Heymann, M. Jacomy, Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks, Third International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 2009. https://gephi.org/publications/gephi -bastian- feb09.pdf

    2009

  40. [48]

    S. Leng, J. Lin, Z. Hu, X. Shen, A Hybrid Data Mining Method for Tunnel Engineering Based on Real -Time Monitoring Data From Tunnel Boring Machines, IEEE Access 8 (2020) pp. 90430 -90449. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2994115

    2020

  41. [49]

    McNicholas, T.B

    P.D. McNicholas, T.B. Murphy, M. O Regan, Standardising the Lift of An Association Rule, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 52 (10) (2008) pp. 4712-4721. doi: 10.1016/j.csda.2008.03.013

    2008 doi

  42. [50]

    Y. Peng, J. Lin, J. Zhang, Z. Hu, A Hybrid Data Mining Approach on BIM -based Building Operation and Maintenance, Building and Environment 126 (2017) pp. 483-495. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.09.030

    2017 doi

  43. [51]

    Z. Shi, B. Zhang, Fast Network Centrality Analysis Using GPUs, BMC Bioinformatics 12 (1) (2011) pp. 149. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-149

    2011 doi

  44. [53]

    T. He, J. Zhang, J. Lin, Y. Li, Multiaspect Similarity Evaluation of BIM -Based Standard Dwelling Units for Residential Design, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 32 (5) (2018) pp. 4018032. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943- 5487.0000774

    2018

  45. [68]

    doi: 10.1109/RE.2007.51

    2007 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.