Goh, Y M and Chua, D K H (2009) Case-based reasoning for construction hazard identification: Case representation and retrieval. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(11), pp. 1181-1189. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper proposes a case-based reasoning (CBR) approach to construction hazard identification that facilitates systematic feedback of past knowledge in the form of incident cases and hazard identification. This paper focuses on two of the key components of the CBR approach: (1) a detailed knowledge representation scheme, developed based on the modified loss causation model, to codify incident cases and past hazard identification and (2) an intelligent retrieval mechanism that can automatically retrieve relevant past cases. The detailed knowledge representation scheme presented herein is designed to model both incident cases and hazard identification so that both types of knowledge repository can be retrieved simultaneously and adapted for use. The scheme also includes a linguistic structure used to facilitate indexing of cases. The retrieval mechanism is based on the concept of similarity scoring. In this paper, a novel scoring technique based on semantic networks is presented. A case study is presented to demonstrate and validate the proposed approach.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | accidents; information technology; knowledge-based systems; risk management; safety |
| Index terms: | knowledge-based system, risk management, indexing, case-based reasoning, hazard identification, information technology, case study |
| Subjects: | cognitive psychology, artificial intelligence, data collection methods, information systems, computing systems, financial risk, risk assessment |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Cost Management, Research Practice, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here