Next Article in Journal
Effect of Spacing and Slenderness Ratio of Piles on the Seismic Behavior of Building Frames
Previous Article in Journal
Investigation of the Deterioration of Medium-Rise-Wall Type Reinforced Concrete Buildings with External Insulation in Snowy Cold Districts
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Contractor Recommendation Model Using Credit Networking and Collaborative Filtering

1
School of Management Science and Real Estate, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China
2
School of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2022, 12(12), 2049; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122049
Submission received: 15 September 2022 / Revised: 9 November 2022 / Accepted: 18 November 2022 / Published: 22 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Construction Management, and Computers & Digitization)

Abstract

:
The credit of contractors in the construction market directly affects the cooperative intentions of owners. Although previous scholars have attempted to use credit to select appropriate contractors, they have rarely considered the trust relationship between decision-making and former owners. This work introduces and verifies a credit network recommendation model based on a collaborative filtering algorithm. The contractor’s credit established based on this model serves as a viable method for owners to select efficient contractors. The application of the model includes relevant information collection, neighbor set formation, contractor’s credit evaluation, and recommendation list formation, among which the neighbor set of the owner is used to calculate the comprehensive trust degree of the decision-making owner to the former owner. A time decay function is adopted to correct the difference in the trust relationship between an owner and a contractor introduced over time. To verify the feasibility of this model, an actual scenario was simulated, and the results obtained via simulations were compared and found to be consistent. Thus, a contractor with a high credit can be recommended to the decision-making owner. This approach is crucial for promoting contractors’ credit and conducive to the healthy development of the construction market.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Owners and contractors are key players in the construction market. Owing to information asymmetry, certain contractors may lack integrity and thus provide buyers with professionally unethical suggestions or guidance [1,2,3]. Occasionally, bid-rigging, collusion, corruption, and other acts occur in the bidding process, wherein some bidders win contracts through dishonesty. Owners are forced to bear the risk of unprofitable outcomes owing to the dishonesty of such contractors. Therefore, the method that the owner adopts to choose the right contractor in the bidding stage is key to the profitability of a project [4,5,6]. With the promulgation of relevant policies, an environment was created to share credit information in the construction industry. Thus, owners can use this credit information to select appropriate contractors. The credit of a contractor spreads through the network among owners. If the decision-making owner does not cooperate with this contractor, an indirect trust score can be obtained from a former owner who has cooperated with the contractor, and the recommendation trust can be accumulated, as shown in Figure 1. If the decision-making owner has cooperated with this contractor, a comprehensive trust will be formed through the last cooperation, and the accumulated recommended trust from other previous owners enables the evaluation of contractor trustworthiness, as depicted in Figure 2.
When choosing a contractor, reference opinions from previous owners often directly affect the judgment of the decision-making owner. If owners who trust each other and have good credit are in the same group, an evaluation previously provided by one of them may have a high reference value. The decision-making owner considers contractors who previously cooperated with other owners in the group to be credible. Thus, the higher the score, the higher the possibility of being a potential cooperative contractor. Contractors with low scores are more likely to be eliminated from the market because owners would consider them to be high-risk contractors; as a result, such contractors are less likely to be placed on the shortlist for cooperation.
Consequently, decision-making owners need to decide how to value the evaluations of previous owners. In this study, a credit network recommendation model was built based on the collaborative filtering algorithm of owners and mutually trusted owners. Moreover, decision-making owners obtain the credit values of contractors through the recommendations and trust evaluations of previous owners. This research complements the trust judgment method at the owner’s level in terms of recommendation trust and helps identify suitable contractors by drawing on algorithms from the computer science field.
For construction with a social investment, bidding is no longer the obligatory means of selecting contractors, and owners can independently decide the method of awarding contracts based on reality. Therefore, owners can choose appropriate contractors by referring to the credit information of the construction market. This study provides a feasible method for owners to select contractors, promotes contractor’s credit improvement, alerts and prompts contractors, and is conducive to improving the organizational and technical levels of contractors and enhancing their competitiveness. To ensure that projects progress in an orderly manner, owners refuse contractors with bad cooperation, which reduces the failure cases across the entire construction market and improves the efficiency of market work. Therefore, this approach is conducive to the healthy development of the construction industry. Notably, this study expands the field of credit in the construction industry and provides new ideas related to methods through which owners can select contractors. Other professionals can also use the findings of the proposed model algorithm to select reliable partners, from the perspective of credit.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Research on Credit

Several previous scholars have focused on the value of credit. Credit is an important component of the socio-economic transaction system, and it is related to the transaction cost and volume of the society. A lack of credit results in chaos in transaction orders and hinders economic development [7,8]. Kreps, Milgrom, Roberts, and Wilson (KMRW) established the KMRW reputation model, which plays a fundamental role in credit research. They showed that, in the course of multiple transactions, operators value long-term expected benefits and provide high-quality labor and services for reputation considerations [9]. Credit is a strategic resource for enterprises to maintain their competitive advantage [10,11]. Friedman and Resnick studied credit under the aforementioned network scenario and rated the credit of online community participants to avoid the dishonest behavior of any community participants who were irresponsible and altered their identities to join the community multiple times [12]. Credit networks are typically applied in computers. Certain scholars have studied the credit mechanism in P2P networks [13,14], whereas others have studied online credit transactions [15,16]. However, few previous studies have focused on the credit networks in the construction industry.
In the field of construction, research on credit has mainly focused on the establishment of a contractor’s credit evaluation index system [17,18] and the development of a constraint and incentive mechanism based on game theory [19,20]. Some scholars have considered credit when studying contractor selection. Credit affects the performance of construction enterprises [21,22,23]. The fuzzy evaluation method can be used to establish a standard system that considers credit to evaluate contractors’ capabilities [24,25,26]. The reciprocal preference relation and credit function can also be used to select the best contractor in situations with incomplete information [27]. Furthermore, some researchers have surveyed opinions on prequalification and reported that cost, experience, and reputation are the main selection factors [28,29,30]. Credit is considered in the evaluation system for the owner’s inspection of contractors [31]. Based on the improved D-S evidence theory, a credit evaluation feedback mechanism for owners with regard to contractors was established for contractor selection [32].

2.2. Research on Recommendation Algorithms Related to Trust

Trust and social relationships among social network users are important indicators of user preferences. Several studies on social network recommendation algorithm modeling have considered these two sets of information [33,34,35]. The graph neural network recommendation algorithm, which combines trust and social reputation, provides accurate and interesting services to users based on social relationships [36]. Social reputation refers to the social evaluation based on social relations. The Slope One algorithm is based on the fusion of trusted data and user similarity; it can be deployed in various recommender systems to solve personalized recommendation tasks concerning the relationship among users [37]. Furthermore, the collaborative filtering algorithm can be applied to a social network awareness recommendation system, employing user ratings of items and the social relationships of users. The density and utility of the collaborative filtering field and social network of each user are considered to solve the problem of limited information [38]. Based on the community in the network, the collaborative filtering algorithm selects a part of the user community as a candidate neighboring user set of the target user, to reduce the computational time and improve the speed and accuracy of the recommendation system [39].

2.3. Research Gap

The participants in the construction market are regarded as network nodes, and the relationships between them are indicated as connection lines. Thus, the spread of credit in this social network leads to the formation of a credit network. The trust among owners may vary depending on various factors. Most researchers study contractors based on the trust of former owners in contractors; however, recommendation trust does not consider the trust between the decision-making owner and former owners. Therefore, the credit network constructed in this study considers the trust among various owners and also uses the PageRank algorithm to calculate the credit of owners in the construction market. The decision-making owner can thus select the recommended contractor based on the credit ratings of contractors who previously cooperated with the other owners. This collaborative filtering algorithm considering credit improves the accuracy and recommendation of contractors’ credit scores based on the evaluations of the trust of previous owners.

3. Methods

Theoretical Modeling and Computer Simulations

Owners and contractors are divided into two different layers, O and C, respectively. Here, O1, O2, O3, and O4 are gathered into a small world owing to the similar nature of enterprises and types of projects undertaken by them. We assume that O1 is the decision-making owner and has a high level of trust with O2, O3, and O4 and that O3 cooperates with contractors C2 and C4. Because O1 has an indirect trust with O3, C2 and C4 are likely to become potential partners of O1, as shown in Figure 3.
The choice of contractors by owners is similar to the manner in which users choose products in e-commerce, that is, a collaborative filtering algorithm is used. Since collaborative filtering technology was proposed in 1992 [40], it has been widely used in recommendation systems. The collaborative filtering algorithm does not consider the content characteristics; it only predicts the behavioral preferences of users based on their historical project score information and identifies individuals similar to a user in the group to form neighbors. The item or information that a neighbor user is interested in is most likely the factor that attracts the attention of the user, leading to recommendation to the user. As shown in Figure 4, user A is interested in items 1, 2, and 3; user B is interested in items 2 and 3; and user C is interested in item 4. Therefore, users A and B have a high similarity, and item 1 is likely to be the object that user B is interested in. Thus, it will be recommended to user B. If two users have similar scores for the same items, then the two users have a high degree of similarity. In this case, it is reasonable to recommend the items preferred by similar users to the target users. This algorithm has been applied in different fields [41,42,43].
In this study, the trust relationship among owners was considered based on trust recommendations; the similarity of owners is an influencing factor for the neighbor set. The formation of the neighboring set for owners is key to the contractor’s credit scores. Based on the idea of the owner set selecting the contractor, the user-based collaborative filtering algorithm is a more suitable method for owners to select contractors based on trust and credit conditions. Accordingly, an owner-based collaborative filtering algorithm is proposed herein.
This owner-based collaborative filtering algorithm was divided into three parts: information collection, formation of the owner neighbor set, and the contractor’s credit score. The first part calculates the composite trust value after the trust and credit spread among the owners and the similarity of the owners. The second part integrates the information collected in the first part to form the neighbor set of the owner. Finally, the credit scores of the contractors who cooperated with owners from the neighbor set of the decision-making owner are obtained, along with the recommendation list. The higher the score, the more likely it is for the contractor to be a part of the recommendation list, as shown in Figure 5.
The composite trust value among owners includes trust and credit values. The degree of cooperation reflects the trust relationship among owners. Owners who trust each other are likely to be long-term partners. Both the number of legally effective contract documents and the degree of familiarity after communication are greater than those in the case of low trust. The amount of cooperation can be used to calculate the trust value between owners.
The credit value refers to the values obtained using the PageRank algorithm [44]. The PageRank algorithm is a webpage ranking algorithm based on link analyses. If a web page is linked by many other web pages, it is highly reliable and ranked, and the links on the web page are reliable. Similarly, if an owner consistently receives positive reviews from owners in the construction market, it shows that the owner has good credit and that their evaluations are authentic.
The similarity function of owners is obtained using the similarity of the trust assessments of the owners for certain contractors and the commonalities across their attributes. The Pearson correlation coefficient is then used to analyze and calculate the similarity of the trust evaluations of contractors by the owners, considering the differences in preferences for factors affecting their trust and evaluation methods. Owners with similar attributes cooperate with similar types of contractors. The similarity in the common attributes of owners is measured according to the ratio of the number of common attributes to the total attributes of owners.
The composite trust and similarity values are fitted to obtain the degree of comprehensive trust. Owners with a high comprehensive trust form a neighbor set. The decision-making owner scores the credit of the contractors with cooperation experience in the neighbor set of the owner. Contractors with high scores are then included in the recommendation list to provide reference information to the decision-making owner.
A few important concepts of the current study, along with brief explanations, are listed in Table 1.

4. Contractor Recommendation Model Based on Credit Network

4.1. Composite Trust Value

4.1.1. Trust Value

The degree of trust can be measured by calculating the trust value. The owner-based collaborative filtering algorithm mainly considers the trust relationship between owners, which can be divided into direct and indirect trust.
Decision-making owners establish direct trust (DT) with owners with whom they have cooperated in the past. DT is measured using the number of business transactions and communications. The number of business transactions refers to the number of formal documents, such as contracts and agreements, whereas the number of communications refers to the time an owner seeks advice from an experienced owner. The formula for DT can be expressed as follows:
D T m n = C N m C N n C N m C N n , I m n = 0 , I n m = 0 I m n + I n m I m + I n , I m n 0   o r   I n m 0 ,
where
  • CN(m) is the number of owners who had business transactions and communications with owner m;
  • CN(n) is the number of owners who had business transactions and communications with owner n;
  • D T m n is the DT from owner m to owner n;
  • I m is the total number of businesses and communications between owner m and other owners;
  • I m n is the business and communication time between owner m and owner n.
Target owners who have never cooperated with the decision-making owner can establish indirect trust (IT) with the decision-making owner, thereby realizing trust transfer through third-party owners. IT mainly solves the problems associated with determining trust delivery and paths, which are divided into serial and parallel trust transfers, as shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, respectively. The owner chooses a transfer path according to his or her behavior preferences.
Serial trust transfer can be expressed as follows:
S T m n = D T m , t 1 × D T t 1 , t 2 × × D T d 1 , n ,
where
  • D T m , t 1 is the DT from owner m to intermediate owner t1;
  • S T m n is the serial trust transfer from owner m to owner n.
Parallel trust transfer is established based on a combination of multiple series of transfer paths. It is divided into three types—conservative, neutral, and aggressive—according to the attitude of the owner toward the trust value; each owner chose a different path. The formulas for these three types are given below.
Conservative: decision-making owners are cautious about the trust of the target owner.
P T m n = m i n S T m n 1 , S T m n 2 , , S T m n k ,
where P T m n is the parallel trust transfer from owner m to owner n.
Neutral: decision-making owners are insensitive to the trust value of the target owner.
P T m n = 1 k i = 1 k S T m n i .
Aggressive: decision-making owners are optimistic about the trust value of the target owner.
P T m n = m a x S T m n 1 , S T m n 2 , , S T m n k .
Finally, the IT value is obtained as follows:
I T m n = S T m n ,   P a t h = 1 P T m n ,   P a t h > 1 .

4.1.2. Credit Value

The credit value considers both positive and negative evaluations from other owners; thus, it adopts a two-point system: 1 represents a positive evaluation (the trust evaluation factor is not less than 0.6), and −1 represents a negative evaluation. The formula for the trust evaluation factor is
T E m , n = H m n I m n ,
where
  • H m n is the number of times owner m feels happy to cooperate and communicate with owner n;
  • I m n is the amount of business and communication from owner m to owner n;
  • T E m , n is the trust evaluation factor.
C n = 1 β N + β · O t x n + C O t x N O t x ,
where
  • C n is the credit value generated by the evaluation of other owners who communicate with owner n;
  • N is the number of owners in the credit network;
  • N O t x is the number of evaluations given by owner O t x to other owners;
  • n + is the collection of all owners who evaluate owner n;
  • O t x are the owners who communicate with owner n;
  • β is the decay factor.
Generally, β = 0.85 (the number of evaluations between the owners is sparser than the number of owners; calculating the credit ranking of owners must smooth zero-probability and low-probability events, such as the owners who do not evaluate other owners).
To simplify the calculations, the aforementioned formula can be expressed in the following matrix form:
C = 1 β × E E T N + β P T C ,
where
  • C is the credit vector of the owner;
  • E is the N-dimensional full 1 column vector;
  • P is the probability transition matrix ( P i , j represents the value of the element in row i and column j in the evaluation matrix divided by the sum of row i).
C can be obtained by solving for the eigenvector when the eigenvalue of the matrix   1 β × E E T N + β P T is 1:
P i , j = M i , j j = 1 N M i , j ,
where
  • M i , j is the value of the element in row i and column j of the owner’s matrix, representing the communication and evaluation between the ith and jth owners; it is 1 for positive, −1 for negative, and 0 for owners without communication and evaluation.
  • N is the number of owners in the credit network.

4.1.3. Composite Trust Value of Owners

The composite trust value (CTV) is calculated using the trust and credit values, as follows:
C T V m , n = C n × D T m n , m   a n d   n   h a v e   c o o p e r a t i o n C n × I T m n , m   a n d   n   h a v e   n o   c o o p e r a t i o n .

4.1.4. Time Decay Correction

Trust relationships change over time; recent cooperation and exchanges between owners become more convincing than trust values from the past. The time decay function was thus introduced to correct for the influence of the cooperation time on trust. The weight of the current cooperation was higher when the trust value was calculated, indicating that when the number of businesses and communications between owners was the same, the trust value calculated in near-term cooperation was more accurate, as shown in the following formula:
γ t = γ 0 + a e t b ,
where
  • a , b are the time decay parameters;
  • t is the cooperation time;
  • γ 0 is the basic trust value;
  • γ t is the time decay function.
The time decay parameters can be determined based on simulations using Origin 2019 software. After processing the decimals, γ 0 = 0.17, a = 0.8, and b = 15 were found to be the most appropriate values (red line). The time decay function is depicted in Figure 8. The red line indicates that trust decreases rapidly in the early stage and gently in the late stage. The yellow line decreases proportionally. The blue line is the opposite of the red line.
The CTV between owners changes when the time decay function is modified.

4.2. Similarity

The similarity function between owners is fitted according to the similarity in the owners’ trust assessments for the same contractor and the commonality across their attributes.

4.2.1. Similarity in Owners’ Trust Assessments for Same Contractor

In this study, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to analyze and calculate the similarity in the trust evaluations of a contractor by the owners. The correlation coefficient between the owners is denoted as R and calculated as follows:
R m 1 , m 2 = x N m 1 , m 2 T V m 1 x T V m 1 ¯ T V m 2 x T V m 2 ¯ x N m 1 T V m 1 x T V m 1 ¯ 2 x N m 2 T V m 2 x T V m 2 ¯ 2 ,
where
  • N m 1 is the collection of contractors who have worked with owner m 1 ;
  • N m 1 , m 2 is the collection of contractors who have worked with both owners m 1 and m 2 ;
  • R m 1 , m 2 is the correlation coefficient between owners m 1 and m 2 ;
  • T V m 1 ¯ is the average trust score of owner m 1 for all contractors who have ever cooperated with the owner;
  • T V m 1 x is the trust value of owner m 1 for contractor x.
The closer the absolute value of R is to 1, the stronger the correlation between two owners and the greater the correlation in the evaluations of owners m 1 and m 2 for the same contractor.

4.2.2. Similarity in Common Attributes of Owners

The similarity in the common attributes of owners is calculated as follows:
F m 1 , m 2 = F m 1 F m 2 F m 12 ,
where
  • F m 1 , m 2 is the similarity in common attributes of owners m 1 and m 2 ;
  • F m 1 is the number of attributes of owner m 1 ;
  • F m 12 is the number of attributes of owner m 1 or m 2 (owners m 1 and m 2 have the same number of attributes for the comparison).
When F m 1 , m 2 is closer to 1, the number of common attributes between owners m 1 and m 2 is greater, and m 1 and m 2 are more similar.

4.2.3. Similarity of Owners

The similarity function of owners is calculated as follows:
S m 1 , m 2 = α R m 1 , m 2 + 1 α F m 1 , m 2 ,
where
  • S m 1 , m 2 is the similarity between owners m 1 and m 2 ;
  • α is the scale factor.

4.3. Recommendation List

The comprehensive trust degree is expressed by T and defined as follows:
T m , n = C T V m , n × S m , n ,
where
  • C T V m , n is the modified CTV;
  • T m , n is the degree of comprehensive trust between owners.
The decision-making owner selects other owners with higher degrees of comprehensive trust as the neighbor set and scores the credit of contractors who have had cooperation experience in the neighbor set. The credit formula is as follows:
P c m , a = T V m ¯ + n N t T m , n × ( T V n a T V n ¯ ) n N t T m , n ,
where
  • N t is the neighbor set of the decision-making owner;
  • P c m , a is the credit score of owner m for contractor a;
  • T V m ¯ is the average trust score of owner m for contractors who have previously cooperated with them;
  • T V n a is the trust value of owner n who has cooperated with contractors a to a.
Finally, the first few contractors with high credit scores are used to form the recommendation list. The contractors on this recommendation list are suitable potential partners of the decision-making owner.

5. Simulation Experiments

5.1. Simulation Approach

In this work, the nodes in the simulation system were grouped into two categories, classes O and C, representing the virtual owners and virtual contractors, respectively. Here, the owners included the decision owners and target owners, whereas class O nodes were divided into request and response nodes. After interacting with each other in a class O hierarchy, a neighbor set was formed, which could query related nodes in the class C hierarchy and feed them back to the class O hierarchy. The C level could answer the O level query request. Table 2 lists the interpretations of all the nodes used in the simulation system. The neighbor set of the class O request nodes depended on the feedback results from the class O response nodes, and the query of the class O request nodes to the class C nodes was related to the class O response nodes. Depending on the scenario, the class O nodes might be of different node types.
For a project to be performed at any given location, owner O1 intends to choose the most suitable Cx as the object of cooperation from many contractors, that is, C1, C2, C3, C4, …, Cn. According to the modeling idea proposed herein, first, node O1 sends a response to the query request of O2, O3, O4, …, Om, and all the class O nodes that have interacted with O1 respond; these are denoted as Ot1. The number of third-party owners is less than or equal to three, and the longest path to reach the target owner is four. Here, Ot1 issues a query request to the class O nodes, and the class O nodes that have interacted with Ot1, excluding O1, generate a response, which is denoted as Ot2, and so on. It is likely that Ot1, Ot2, Ot3, and Ot4 are neighbors of owner O1. According to the comprehensive trust calculation rule, a trust score for the class O response node can be obtained. Class O response nodes with high comprehensive trust are selected as the neighbor set of the class O request node O1, which are assumed to be O2, O3, and O4. Here, O2, O3, and O4 send requests to the class C nodes, and all the class C nodes that have interacted with O2, O3, and O4 respond and feed back to the class O requesting node O1. According to the calculation rules for the credit score, class C nodes with high credit scores, such as C1 and C2, are obtained to form the contractor recommendation list. The selection range of contractors is narrowed, and thus owner O1 can compare C1 and C2 to make the final decision. At this point, the credit network recommendation model, constructed using the collaborative filtering algorithm of the owner, completes one iteration. Here, the effectiveness of the built model was proved by simulating the process of the owner choosing the contractor.

5.2. Simulation Hypothesis

We considered a certain city with a moderately difficult and medium-sized project issued by the owner and that the best partner must be chosen from 10 selected contractors. Further, we assumed that the owner had no past cooperation with these 10 contractors and knew nearly nothing about their performance and abilities. Thereafter, the credit evaluation of the contractors by owners who had cooperated with them was used to eliminate contractor candidates with poor credit. The number of other owners who had direct or indirect contact with the owner was 99.
The abilities and behaviors of the contractors are the primary reasons for their inherent attributes that do not change with the trust evaluation. The value range of the inherent attributes of trust of the contractors was set as [0, 100], where 100 represented excellent performance and a very high level. Meanwhile, zero implied that the contractor was extremely poor and had no advantage in almost any aspect. According to the normal distribution with a mean value of 70, the inherent attributes of trust were randomly assigned to class C nodes, representing the capability value of each contractor; these inherent attribute values of trust obeyed X − N (70, 102).

5.3. Simulation Process

According to the abovementioned simulation conditions, the simulation process was defined using the design links, as illustrated in Figure 9.

5.3.1. Trust Evaluation between Owners

After determining the inherent attribute of the trust evaluation factor of the class O node, the respective credit value could be calculated. The intrinsic attributes of the trust evaluation factor of class O nodes followed X − N (0.7, 0.12), as shown in Figure 10. The specific steps were as follows. Firstly, a random O class node was simulated, based on the inherent nature of the trust evaluation factor value, which determined the performance of cooperation. If TE ≥ 0.6, then O had a better ability, indicating the trust evaluation assignment s = 1, which suggested that the other O nodes provided positive opinions. If TE < 0.6, then s = −1, which suggested that the other O nodes provided negative opinions. According to the logic of the PageRank algorithm, the PR value of O was calculated and sorted, that is, the value and order of the credit.

5.3.2. Owner’s Assessment of Trust in Contractor

The simulation system randomly selected a class C node and assigned it the trust inherent attribute value, according to the law of normal distribution. Based on the trust inherent attribute value, a normal distribution with a standard deviation of 10 was used to form the trust evaluation distribution of this node; some distributions were selected for the trust evaluation for the class C node from the class O nodes, as shown in Figure 11.
The credit scores obtained using the contractor-type nodes after the simulation were sorted to represent the calculation results of the model. The similarity h between the actual scenario and simulations was compared based on the set measurement. The number of intersection elements in the sets corresponding to the two sequences at different depths may differ. The similarity of the sorted list could then be obtained using the average intersection ratios at different depths. If the similarity was high, then the simulation results were consistent with the results of the actual situation.

5.3.3. Owner’s Neighbor Set

The owner set formed by Ot1, Ot2, Ot3, and Ot4 reduced the number of owners according to the trust value, and as a result, the owners who were less connected with the decision owner were excluded; the number of owners was reduced by a factor of one-third and sorted according to the CTV. By comparing the similarity of the contractor trust assessments between request node O1 and response nodes Ot1, Ot2, Ot3, and Ot4, the number of owners in the owner set was further reduced by one-half to form the owner neighbor set with one-third of the original Ot1, Ot2, Ot3, and Ot4 owners, according to the ranking of the comprehensive trust degree.

5.3.4. Owner Chooses a Contractor

Here, Ot1, Ot2, Ot3, and Ot4 in the neighbor set provided recommendations to the class C nodes with which requesting node O1 intended to cooperate, assuming that C1 was one of them. The selected O-type nodes that had interacted with C1 in the neighbor set formed set NC1. Each O-type node in NC1 had a trust evaluation for C1. The trust score followed a normal distribution with the trust inherent attribute of C1, with a mean and standard deviation of 10. Owing to the high reliability of the O-type nodes in NC1, the random value range of the trust score was (μ − 10, μ + 10). The average value of the trust scores of the class O nodes in NC1 with regard to the class C nodes that had interacted was calculated according to the number of class C nodes that had interacted with this recommendation. Here, O1 took the trust inherent attribute as the trust evaluation value for the C-type nodes that had responded. The comprehensive trust degree of O1 to O-type nodes in NC1 was combined to form the credit score of O1 to C1.

5.4. Simulation Results

We assumed that the decision-making owner was aggressive. In the construction market, there was approximately one direct communication among every five owners, and the probability of direct interactions between the owner-type nodes was 20%. Furthermore, there were up to four iterations when calculating IT. The number of properties of the owner-type node was 10, and the O-type nodes in the neighbor set had a complete evaluation of the 10 C-type nodes. The simulation of the program yielded the following results.
The decision-making owner evaluated the CTV and similarity of other connected owners to form a comprehensive trust degree, and they collected the top 34 owners with high comprehensive trust degrees as members of the neighbor set. Table 3 lists the CTVs of the decision-making owners with respect to the other owners, Table 4 presents the evaluation of the similarity of the decision-making owners to some owners, and Table 5 shows the comprehensive trust of the decision-making owners in their neighboring owners, in a descending order.
Table 6 shows the inherent attributes of trust assigned to a contractor by random values, according to the normal distribution curve of X − N (70, 102). This was processed in descending order according to the inherent property of contractor trust, and two decimal digits were reserved as the evaluation standards for the contractor ability, quality, and morality levels in actual situations. Here, C8, C6, and C2 had high trust inherent property values and were ideal partners for cooperation; by contrast, C3, C4, C9, and C10 had low trust inherent property values, and the decision-making owner did not expect to cooperate with them.
Table 7 presents the trust evaluation of an owner with ID 33 for 10 different contractors.
Table 8 compares the rankings between the inherent attributes of trust and the contractor’s credit scores assigned by the decision-making owner.
Table 9 shows the similarity h obtained via the method of set measurements.
From Table 9, it is evident that h = 0.969 > 0.75, which indicates that the similarity between the two sequences is high, and the simulation results reflect the credit level of a contractor.
Figure 12 shows a scatter plot of the similarity h obtained after performing multiple simulations. According to the distribution, the similarity is concentrated around 0.9, which verifies the effectiveness of the model.
According to the credit scores listed, contractors C8, C6, and C2 had better evaluations and were the top three candidates in the recommendation list. Their ranking was the same as that of the intrinsic contractor’s trust properties. The ranking results were similar to those in the actual scenario, indicating that the model and simulation experiments could narrow the scope of contractor selection and reflect the capability and quality of the contractors in terms of serving the decision-making owner. The credit scores for C3, C4, C9, and C10 were lower, and they failed to meet the requirements of the decision-making owner. Hence, they were replaced with better contractors, which was also in agreement with the actual scenario. Based on the simulation results, ranking errors, such as those for C5 and C7, were because the inherent trust values of these contractors were relatively similar; in such cases, the sensitivity of the model was weakened. Thus, it was difficult to identify their true ranking. For contractors with a large difference in their inherent trust values, the model could provide ranking results that were consistent with the actual scenario. Thus, the basic ranking of the credit of a contractor could be calculated using this credit network recommendation model.

6. Conclusions

In this study, we established a credit network recommendation model using an owner-based collaborative filtering algorithm. In this approach, contractors’ credit scores were obtained using trust evaluations from owners who were trusted by the decision-making owner, to narrow the scope of the contractor selection.
(1)
We defined the meaning and application scope of trust and credit in the field of construction, analyzed different methods of trust and credit transmission using the principles of trust chain and the PageRank method, and determined the trust values of decision-making owners to other owners and the credit values of the target owners. Considering the effects of cooperation time on the trust relationship between owners, a time decay function was introduced to correct the trust and credit values with respect to time.
(2)
According to the idea of the collaborative filtering algorithm, a contractor recommendation model based on the credit network was constructed. The neighbor set was established using the trust relationship between owners. A comprehensive trust degree between the owners served as the criterion for selecting the neighbor owners, and it was fitted considering trust, credit, and similarity. A recommendation from a neighbor owner was more credible than that of a general owner, which subsequently improved the satisfaction of the decision-making owner when choosing contractors based on the recommendation trust. The decision-making owner scored the credit of contractors who had cooperated with the neighborhood set, and contractors with high ratings were included in the recommendation list.
(3)
Based on a comparison of the simulation cases and model output results, it is concluded that the contractor recommendation model based on the collaborative filtering algorithm can select the contractor with a high credit rating to serve the owner.
In this study, the trust relationship between owners was established; however, less emphasis was placed on the trust between former owners and prospective contractors. It was previously assumed that the inherent trust of a contractor did not change with time. However, we proved that the influence of time on the ability of a contractor is important. In addition, the model is less sensitive to contractors with similar inherent trust. Hence, future work should consider the combined effects of time on both owners and contractors and distinguish between similar contractors carefully.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.Z.; data curation, Y.Z.; formal analysis, Y.Z.; methodology, Y.Z.; validation, Y.Z. and S.T.; project administration, Y.Z. and K.Y.; software, Y.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.Z.; writing—review and editing, Y.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

All the data, models, and codes that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the School of Civil Engineering at the Harbin Institute of Technology for supporting this study. The authors also thank Li Gaoyang for compiling the algorithm for the simulations.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Shi, Y.; Liu, J. Research on contractor credit behavior in construction market based on the evolutionary game theory. J. Beijing Jiaotong Univ. Sci. Ed. 2018, 17, 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Xiao, L.; Ye, K.; Zhou, J.; Ye, X.; Tekka, R.S. A social network-based examination on bid riggers’ relationships in the construction industry: A case study of China. Buildings 2021, 11, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zhu, J.; Wang, B.; Li, L.; Wang, J. Bidder Network. Community division and collusion suspicion analysis in Chinese construction projects. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2020, 2020, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pham, V.H.S.; Phan, K.A. Bid compensation effectiveness analysis based on owner and contractor perspective using game theory approach. Asian J. Civ. Eng. 2021, 22, 1269–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tan, Y.; Xue, B.; Cheung, Y.T. Relationships between main contractors and subcontractors and their impacts on main contractor competitiveness: An empirical study in Hong Kong. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 05017007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Taylan, O.; Kabli, M.R.; Porcel, C.; Herrera-Viedma, E. Contractor selection for construction projects using consensus tools and big data. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2018, 20, 1267–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Fischer, R.; Huerta, D.; Valenzuela, P. The inequality-credit nexus. J. Int. Money Finan. 2019, 91, 105–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Li, X. Corporate Reputation Corporate Behavior and Market Mechanism Research on Japanese Corporate System Model; Economic Science Press: Beijing, China, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  9. Kreps, D.M.; Wilson, R. Reputation and imperfect information. J. Econ. Theor. 1982, 27, 253–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Esenyel, V. Corporate reputation as a strategic management tool: Through the lens of employees. Int. J. Manag. Sustain. 2020, 9, 24–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Barney, J.B. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Adv. Strateg. Manag. 1991, 17, 203–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Friedman, E.J.; Resnick, P. The social cost of cheap pseudonyms. J. Econ. Manag. Strateg. 2001, 10, 173–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Zhao, C.; Li, M.; Wang, J.; Ma, S. The mechanism of credit risk contagion among Internet P2P lending platforms based on a SEIR model with time-lag. Res. Int. Bus. Finan. 2021, 57, 101407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhang, L.; Wei, X.; Huang, Y.; Huang, H.; Fu, X.; Wang, R. GT-bidding: Group trust model of P2P network based on bidding. Secur. Commun. Netw. 2021, 2021, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lai, H.; Huang, Y.; Zhou, Z. Network trust and credit risk evaluation under online transaction based on cloud model—A case study in C2C transaction mode. Manag. Rev. 2017, 29, 225–234. [Google Scholar]
  16. Liu, X. Analysis of credit score in China’s e-commerce market. In E3S Web Conf. Proceedings of the E3S Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2020; Volume 218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zou, Z.; Feng, J.; Huang, Z.; Zhang, K.; Zou, L. Research on credit evaluation of construction market Entities Based on conditional random field. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 643, 012179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fu, J.; Fang, J.; Wang, W. Research on construction and application of comprehensive credit evaluation system of bid inviter’s. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Construction and Real Estate Management 2017, Guangzhou, China, 10–12 November 2017; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 2017; pp. 131–138. [Google Scholar]
  19. Rastegar, H.; Shirani, B.A.; Mirmohammadi, S.H.; Bajegani, A. A game theory approach for determining optimum strategy of claim resolution in construction projects. J. Ind. Syst. Eng. 2019, 12, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  20. Jing, J.; Deng, X.; Maqbool, R.; Rashid, Y.; Ashfaq, S. Default behaviors of contractors under surety bond in construction industry based on evolutionary game model. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lei, Z.; Tang, W.; Qiang, M. Enhancing capability of General Contractor by partnering in hydropower EPC projects. Hydropower Pumped Storage 2018, 4, 44–49. [Google Scholar]
  22. Xu, Y.; Li, H.; Ding, F. A study of owners’ satisfaction on contractors under general contracting mode. Eng. Manag. 2017, 31, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jaskowski, P.; Biruk, S.; Bucon, R. Assessing contractor selection criteria weights with fuzzy AHP method application in group decision environment. Autom. Constr. 2010, 19, 120–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Krishna Rao, M.V.; Kumar, V.S.S.; Rathish Kumar, P. Optimal contractor selection in construction industry: The fuzzy way. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A 2018, 99, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chaghooshi, A.J.; Khanmohammadi, E.; Faghei, M.; Karimi, A. Contractor selection using integrated goal programming and fuzzy ELECTRE. Int. J. Strateg. Decis. Sci. 2014, 5, 65–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Singh, D.; Tiong, R.L.K. A fuzzy decision framework for contractor selection. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2005, 131, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Birjandi, A.K.; Akhyani, F.; Sheikh, R.; Sana, S.S. Evaluation and selecting the contractor in bidding with incomplete information using MCGDM method. Soft Comput. 2019, 23, 10569–10585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gurgun, A.P.; Koc, K.; Durdyev, S. Improving owner-contractor relationship through trust-based pre-qualification in green building projects. J. Green Build. 2022, 17, 211–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Patil, S.; Konnur, B.; Devthanekar, P.; Patil, K. Review of contractor pre-qualification criteria and their impact on project success factors. Int. J. Res. Eng. Sci. Manag. 2020, 3, 298–302. [Google Scholar]
  30. Chen, Z.; Zhang, X.; Rodríguez, R.M.; Pedrycz, W.; Martínez, L. Expertise-based bid evaluation for construction-contractor selection with generalized comparative linguistic ELECTRE III. Autom. Constr. 2021, 125, 103578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vo, K.D.; Pham, C.P.; Phan, P.T.; Vu, N.B.; Tien, M.; Duong, H.; Le, L.P. Critical factors of subcontractor evaluation and selection: A case study in Vietnam. J. Asian Finan. Econ. Bus. 2021, 8, 297–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dai, L. Trust Degree for Contractor Selection Based on the Owner’s Perspective; Harbin/Harbin Institute of Technology: Harbin, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  33. Xin, M.; Wu, L. Using multi-features to partition users for friends recommendation in location based social network. Inf. Process. Manag. 2020, 57, 102125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liu, X. A collaborative filtering recommendation algorithm based on the influence sets of e-learning group’s behavior. Clust. Comput. 2019, 22, 2823–2833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hsu, P.Y.; Lei, H.T.; Huang, S.H.; Liao, T.H.; Lo, Y.C.; Lo, C.C. Effects of sentiment on recommendations in social network. Electron. Mark. 2019, 29, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hu, C.; Deng, A.; Tong, X.; Liao, H.; Wang, Z. A graph neural network recommendation study combining trust and reputation in social e-commerce. Chin. J. Manag. Sci. 2021, 29, 202–212. [Google Scholar]
  37. Jiang, L.; Cheng, Y.; Yang, L.; Li, J.; Yan, H.; Wang, X. A trust-based collaborative filtering algorithm for e-commerce recommendation system. J. Ambient Intell. Human. Comput. 2019, 10, 3023–3034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Margaris, D.; Kobusinska, A.; Spiliotopoulos, D.; Vassilakis, C. An adaptive social network-aware collaborative filtering algorithm for improved rating prediction accuracy. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 68301–68310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Li, X.; Li, D. An improved collaborative filtering recommendation algorithm and recommendation strategy. Mob. Inf. Syst. 2019, 2019, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Goldberg, D.; Nichols, D.; Oki, B.M.; Terry, D. Using collaborative filtering to weave an information tapestry. Commun. ACM 1992, 35, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Li, J.; Ye, Z. Course recommendations in online education based on collaborative filtering recommendation algorithm. Complexity 2020, 2020, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ning, Y. Method of interior design project recommendation based on collaborative filtering technology. Microcomput. Appl. 2020, 36, 123–125. [Google Scholar]
  43. Zheng, Z.; Gao, Y.; Yin, L.; Rabarison, M.K. Modeling and analysis of a stock-based collaborative filtering algorithm for the Chinese stock market. Expert Syst. Appl. 2020, 162, 113006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tortosa, L.; Vicent, J.F.; Yeghikyan, G. An algorithm for ranking the nodes of multiplex networks with data based on the PageRank concept. Appl. Math. Comput. 2021, 392, 125676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Freeman, L.C. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc. Netw. 1978, 1, 215–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Mui, L.; Mohtashemi, M.; Halberstadt, A. A computational model of trust and reputation. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI, USA, 10 January 2002; pp. 2431–2439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Abdul-Rahman, A.; Hailes, S. Supporting trust in virtual communities. In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, USA, 7 January 2000. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Decision-making owner with no direct trust with the contractor.
Figure 1. Decision-making owner with no direct trust with the contractor.
Buildings 12 02049 g001
Figure 2. Decision-making owner with direct trust with the contractor.
Figure 2. Decision-making owner with direct trust with the contractor.
Buildings 12 02049 g002
Figure 3. Cooperation and trust relationships among owners and contractors.
Figure 3. Cooperation and trust relationships among owners and contractors.
Buildings 12 02049 g003
Figure 4. User-based collaborative filtering algorithm.
Figure 4. User-based collaborative filtering algorithm.
Buildings 12 02049 g004
Figure 5. Framework of owner-based collaborative filtering algorithm.
Figure 5. Framework of owner-based collaborative filtering algorithm.
Buildings 12 02049 g005
Figure 6. Serial trust transfer.
Figure 6. Serial trust transfer.
Buildings 12 02049 g006
Figure 7. Parallel trust transfer.
Figure 7. Parallel trust transfer.
Buildings 12 02049 g007
Figure 8. Time decay.
Figure 8. Time decay.
Buildings 12 02049 g008
Figure 9. Simulation flowchart.
Figure 9. Simulation flowchart.
Buildings 12 02049 g009
Figure 10. Distribution of inherent attributes of trust evaluation factors.
Figure 10. Distribution of inherent attributes of trust evaluation factors.
Buildings 12 02049 g010
Figure 11. Distribution of owner trust in contractor.
Figure 11. Distribution of owner trust in contractor.
Buildings 12 02049 g011
Figure 12. Scatter plot of similarity h.
Figure 12. Scatter plot of similarity h.
Buildings 12 02049 g012
Table 1. Explanation of important concepts in this study.
Table 1. Explanation of important concepts in this study.
ConceptsExplanation
TrustSubjective judgment of an owner of the expected behavior of a contractor under risk and uncertainty based on past cooperation experience(s) [32].
CreditComprehensive scores of construction market participants on the performance, attitude, and behavior of the contractor [45,46,47].
Composite trustDecision-making owner integrates his or her knowledge based on past cooperation experience and the trust evaluation of former construction market owners; a certain calculation rule is used to obtain a composite evaluation of the trust level of the former owner. The composite trust comprises the trust and credit values.
SimilaritySimilarity among owner expectations of the contractor and their attributes. It is formed by fitting similarities in the owner’s trust evaluations of contractors and the similarity across owner attributes.
Comprehensive trustComprehensive evaluation of the trust a decision-making owner has in former owners. It is obtained by combining the composite trust of a former owner by the decision-making owner and the similarity with the former owner, using a certain calculation rule.
Table 2. Simulation system nodes and their descriptions.
Table 2. Simulation system nodes and their descriptions.
Simulation System NodeReal Environment ObjectNotation
Class O request nodeDecision-making ownerO1, O2, O3, …, Om
Class O response nodeTarget ownerO1, O2, O3, …, Om
Class C nodeContractorC1, C2, C3, …, Cn
Table 3. CTVs of decision-making owners with respect to other owners.
Table 3. CTVs of decision-making owners with respect to other owners.
Owner IDCTVOwner IDCTV
……………………
250.009254600.008537
260.007779610.007245
270.009282620.009927
280.007052630.010271
290.014805640.011784
……………………
Table 4. Similarity of decision-making owners to some other owners.
Table 4. Similarity of decision-making owners to some other owners.
Owner IDSimilarityOwner IDSimilarity
……………………
70.665929820.638158
80.572265830.668775
190.496514840.685942
100.625432850.658776
110.551873860.555459
……………………
Table 5. Comprehensive trust of decision-making owners of neighboring owners.
Table 5. Comprehensive trust of decision-making owners of neighboring owners.
NumberOwner IDTNumberOwner IDT
1330.01174818450.007819
230.01052719510.007587
3550.00953620930.007239
4290.00921921500.007234
5810.00911422320.007206
6640.00876723150.007177
740.00875724530.007032
8780.00866325580.006987
9680.00841326360.006925
10980.00840827630.006885
11950.0082692880.006855
12910.00820829200.006827
13670.00819730620.006745
14970.00818431100.006660
15540.00792232340.006627
16350.00789033470.006484
17240.00782134890.006464
Table 6. Inherent attributes of a trustworthy contractor.
Table 6. Inherent attributes of a trustworthy contractor.
NumberContractor CnInherent AttributesContractor CnInherent Attributes of Trust in Descending Order
1C177.54C886.38
2C284.00C684.90
3C365.50C284.00
4C466.28C177.54
5C573.44C573.44
6C684.90C773.20
7C773.20C466.28
8C886.38C365.50
9C962.81C1063.36
10C1063.36C962.81
Table 7. Contractor trust evaluation for the owner with ID 33.
Table 7. Contractor trust evaluation for the owner with ID 33.
CnC1C2C3C4C5C6C7C8C9C10
Evaluation86.4877.2658.0676.2882.2792.5276.9681.1557.4557.77
Table 8. Credit ranking comparison.
Table 8. Credit ranking comparison.
NumberContractor CnInherent Properties of TrustContractor CnCredit Score
1C886.38C813.23
2C684.90C612.41
3C284.00C211.14
4C177.54C14.75
5C573.44C72.51
6C773.20C5−1.67
7C466.28C4−7.80
8C365.50C3−9.16
9C1063.36C9−9.62
10C962.81C10−9.80
Table 9. Credit ranking similarity comparison.
Table 9. Credit ranking similarity comparison.
DepthReal Ranking of the Top K ContractorsSimulation Ranking of the Top K ContractorsIntersection ContractorProportion
1C8C8{C8}1/1 = 1
2C8, C6C8, C6{C8, C6}2/2 = 1
3C8, C6, C2C8, C6, C2{C8, C6, C2}3/3 = 1
4C8, C6, C2, C1C8, C6, C2, C1{C8, C6, C2, C1}4/4 = 1
5C8, C6, C2, C1, C5C8, C6, C2, C1, C7{C8, C6, C2, C1}4/5 = 0.8
6C8, C6, C2, C1, C5, C7C8, C6, C2, C1, C7, C5{C8, C6, C2, C1, C5, C7}6/6 = 1
7C8, C6, C2, C1, C5, C7, C4C8, C6, C2, C1, C7, C5, C4{C8, C6, C2, C1, C5, C7, C4}7/7 = 1
8C8, C6, C2, C1, C5, C7, C4, C3C8, C6, C2, C1, C7, C5, C4, C3{C8, C6, C2, C1, C5, C7, C4, C3}8/8 = 1
9C8, C6, C2, C1, C5, C7, C4, C3, C10C8, C6, C2, C1, C7, C5, C4, C3, C9{C8, C6, C2, C1, C5, C7, C4, C3}8/9 = 0.89
10C8, C6, C2, C1, C5, C7, C4, C3, C10, C9C8, C6, C2, C1, C7, C5, C4, C3, C9, C10{C8, C6, C2, C1, C5, C7, C4, C3, C10, C9}10/10 = 1
Similarity h = 0.969
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, Y.; Tai, S.; Ye, K. Contractor Recommendation Model Using Credit Networking and Collaborative Filtering. Buildings 2022, 12, 2049. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122049

AMA Style

Zhang Y, Tai S, Ye K. Contractor Recommendation Model Using Credit Networking and Collaborative Filtering. Buildings. 2022; 12(12):2049. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122049

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Yao, Shuangliang Tai, and Kunhui Ye. 2022. "Contractor Recommendation Model Using Credit Networking and Collaborative Filtering" Buildings 12, no. 12: 2049. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122049

APA Style

Zhang, Y., Tai, S., & Ye, K. (2022). Contractor Recommendation Model Using Credit Networking and Collaborative Filtering. Buildings, 12(12), 2049. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122049

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop