A Novel and Intelligent Safety-Hazard Classification

Method with Syntactic and Semantic Features for

Large-Scale Construction Projects
Dan Tian 1; Mingchao Li, M.ASCE 2; Shuai Han 3; and Yang Shen 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTH CHINA UNIVERSITY OF on 08/17/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: To improve the efficiency of safety management, it is important to classify massive and complex construction site safety hazard
texts in large-scale projects. High-precision safety hazard text classification is a lengthy and challenging process. Most existing safety
hazard text classification methods capture semantic information using machine learning or deep learning, ignoring the syntactic dependency
between words. However, syntactic dependency contains rich structural information that is useful to alleviate information loss and enrich
text features. To address these issues, this study proposes a graph structure–based hybrid deep learning method to achieve the automatic
classification of large-scale project safety hazard texts. The method uses syntactic dependency and Bidirectional Encoder Representation
from Transformers to express the syntactic structure and semantic information of text, and a graph structure fusing the syntactic structure
and semantic information is constructed to quantify text information. Further, an encoding-decoding mechanism is built using a graph
convolutional neural network and bidirectional long short-term memory to address graph structure data and classify safety hazard texts.
Our proposed method is used to classify hydraulic engineering construction safety hazard texts, and the classification accuracy reaches
86.56%. Meanwhile, the experimental results demonstrate that our model achieves superior performance compared to existing methods. This
proves the ability of our model to capture and analyze text information and verifies the reliability and effectiveness of this method in large-
scale project safety hazard management. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002382. © 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Large-scale project; Construction safety hazard; Text classification; Graph structure; Bidirectional Encoder
Representations from Transformers (BERT); Graph convolutional network (GCN); Bidirectional long short-term memory (BiLSTM).

Introduction similarity in terms of management measure and hazard risk and

Construction site safety hazards can easily lead to safety incidents
and are a major concern of safety management (Kim and Chi 2019;
Xu et al. 2021a). In particular, the construction of a large-scale
project is characterized by a wide construction area, scattered per-
sonnel, many parallel construction projects, and complex proce-
dures and construction environment, which increases the difficulty
of controlling safety hazards (Ding and Li 2013; Tian et al. 2021).
To obtain construction site safety hazard information in a timely
manner, a construction unit will organize a large number of inves-
tigations and record safety hazard information with text (Lin et al.
2020; Tixier et al. 2016; Qiu et al. 2021). Therefore, large-scale
project construction sites generate a large number of safety hazard
texts, which affects the efficiency of safety hazard management
and analysis. Fortunately, the same safety hazard type has high
1
Ph.D. Candidate, State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering
Simulation and Safety, Tianjin Univ., Tianjin 300350, China. Email:
tiand@tju.edu.cn
2 hazards is complicated. First, manual analysis efficiency is low
Professor, State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation
and Safety, Tianjin Univ., Tianjin 300350, China (corresponding author).
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3010-0892. Email: lmc@tju.edu.cn
3
Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept. of Building and Real Estate, Hong Kong
Polytechnic Univ., Hong Kong. Email: drjasonhan@163.com
4
Senior Engineer, China Three Gorges Corporation, No. 1 Yuyuantan
South Rd., Haidian District, Beijing 100038, China. Email: tjusy1984@
163.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 22, 2022; approved
on May 31, 2022; published online on August 1, 2022. Discussion period
open until January 1, 2023; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engi-
neering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
contains similar safety hazard knowledge, so safety hazard man-
agement efficiency can be improved by text classification (Chi et al.
2016; Zhong et al. 2020a).
Problem Statement
The main task of construction site safety management is to discover
and analyze safety hazards and formulate corresponding safety haz-
ard control measures (Han et al. 2021). However, the massive safety
hazard text data are diversified and fragmented, which directly af-
fects the efficiency of construction site safety management. Text
classification can be used to cluster related texts, which can make
it possible to give a specific theme to clustered texts (Chen et al.
2022). It is helpful to reduce the difficulty of text analysis and
improve the application value of text information. Thus, managers
will define the safety hazard type in investigating safety hazards.
Currently, safety hazard text classification at construction sites
mainly relies on manual operation. There are two main problems
with manual classification methods because the content of safety
and requires considerable time to understand and classify safety
hazard text, which does not meet the requirement of automated
safety hazard text management (Hong et al. 2021; Baker et al.
2020). Second, the accuracy of manual operation is low, and
manual classification mainly relies on safety management expe-
rience, but there are differences in the experience and knowledge
of managers, and their understanding of safety hazards is also dif-
ferent, making it difficult to unify the classification results of
safety hazards. Meanwhile, the manual operation makes it diffi-
cult to utilize experience with safety hazards and the knowledge
gain from that experience. Because there are many safety hazard

© ASCE 04022109-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(10): 04022109

 types at a large-scale project construction site, the boundaries of
safety hazard types are undefined, and it is easy to cause errors in
understanding.
Especially in the field of large-scale project safety hazard man-
agement, the investigation and recording of safety hazards are usu-
ally carried out by many people. Safety hazard texts are complex
and diverse, and the same safety hazard type may have different
forms of expression, which decreases the correlation between
safety hazard texts and increases the difficulty of text analysis.
Although some scholars have developed safety hazard classifica-
tion methods by machine learning and deep learning, it is difficult
to obtain comprehensive text features only by analyzing the seman-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTH CHINA UNIVERSITY OF on 08/17/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tic information for complex safety hazard texts (Zhang et al. 2019;
Chen et al. 2022). The existing methods still have a large improve-
ment space in computational accuracy. Fortunately, there are many
technical terms in a safety hazard text. Although the semantic dif-
ference between technical terms is ubiquitous, the function of tech-
nical terms of the same type is similar in syntactic structure, which
allows for an effective approach to strengthening the relationship
between different expressions of safety hazards. Thus, it is neces-
sary to establish an automatic classification method suitable for the
management of large-scale construction site safety hazards.
Proposed Solution
Motivated by the preceding discussion, this study proposes a graph
structure–based hybrid deep learning method (GSHDLM) that
integrates syntactic structure and semantic information. It aims to
improve text classification accuracy and solve large-scale project
safety hazard management problems. The method uses syntactic
dependency to express text structure. The Bidirectional Encoder
Representations from Transformers (BERT) method is adopted for
training and obtaining word vectors. The text semantic information
is expressed as the similarity between words. The syntactic struc-
ture and semantic information are used to build a safety hazard
information network graph as the model input. The nodes indicate
words in a document and the edges indicate the syntactic and
semantic relations from one node to another. Furthermore, a graph
convolutional network (GCN) and bidirectional long short-term
memory (BiLSTM) are used to establish a text encoding
and decoding framework that can extract key features from infor-
mation network graphs and achieve end-to-end safety hazard
recognition.
The text classification model proposed in this study combines
the safety hazard text features of large-scale projects, not only cap-
turing semantic correlations but also considering syntactic struc-
ture relationships. The model strengthens the relationship between
words, enhances the features of text information, and reduces the
impact of information fragmentation for safety hazard classification
by constructing an information network graph. Furthermore, the
encoding and decoding framework based on a GCN and BiLSTM
can fully integrate the node information and discover the potential
syntactic and semantic relationships, which means the model is
capable of selectively utilizing relevant information that is helpful
for safety hazard classification.
The main innovations and contributions of this paper can be
summarized as follows. (1) An encoding-decoding structure frame-
work based on a GCN and BiLSTM is proposed to fuse syntactic
structure semantic information, which enhances safety hazard text
features and improves the text understanding effect. (2) To incor-
porate the syntactic structure and semantic information into text
features, BERT is used to calculate the semantic similarity between
words; a graph structure is constructed to capture the syntactic and
semantic information with words as nodes based on the syntactic
© ASCE 04022109-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(10): 04022109
dependency and semantic similarity within text. (3) To the best of
our knowledge, this is the first application of a GCN model to
safety hazard classification. The GCN carried out in-depth analysis
of the syntactic structure and semantic information presented by
graph data and improves the accuracy of safety hazard recognition.
Literature Review
There exist two text classification methods for construction safety
management text: shallow machine learning–based text classifi-
cation and deep learning–based text classification (Salama and
El-Gohary 2016; Liu et al. 2021; Zhang et al. 2020). Machine
learning–based text classification methods are used to extract fea-
tures by analyzing text semantics. Chokor et al. (2016) used unsu-
pervised machine learning methods to analyze safety incidents and
establish an accident report classification model based on the
k-means method. The model evaluated the capabilities of machine
learning methods in safety management. Goh and Ubeynarayana
(2017) evaluated six machine learning algorithms, including a
support vector machine (SVM), linear regression, random forest,
k-nearest neighbor, decision tree, and naive Bayes, and found that
the SVM outperformed other classifiers, which verified the ap-
plicability of machine learning algorithms for safety management
text analysis. Zhang et al. (2019) proposed an ensemble model in-
tegrating five machine learning methods to classify the causes of
accidents, and an actual case was used to verify the accuracy and
robustness of the method. The proposed joint learning model has
been reported to have better accuracy than a single machine learn-
ing method. Shallow machine learning can only use shallow fea-
tures specified by humans, and the process of feature extraction is
influenced by human domain knowledge; thus, it is difficult to
achieve deep mining of text features (Zhong et al. 2020a; Fang
et al. 2020). Unlike shallow machine learning, deep learning algo-
rithms can automatically identify text features and use nonlinear
combinations of multiple functions to learn complex tasks from
training data (Lecun et al. 2015; Alam et al. 2020). Zhong et al.
(2020b) built a text classification model fusing the Latent Dirichlet
Allocation (LDA) method and a convolutional neural network
(CNN) model to automatically recognize construction safety haz-
ards, which confirmed the operability and reliability of deep learn-
ing methods in construction text classification. Fang et al. (2020)
developed an improved deep learning method based on BERT to
achieve automatic text classification and validate the effectiveness
and feasibility of the method, which proved the superiority of
BERT for safety text classification. Cheng et al. (2020) proposed
a symbiotic gated recurrent unit (GRU) incorporating a GRU and
symbiotic organisms search (SOS) to classify construction site
accident texts, which can search the best parameters of the GRU to
ensure optimal performance. Feng and Chen (2021) proposed a
natural language data augmentation–based small sample training
framework, and then the BiLSTM–conditional random field was
used to classify construction safety accident features, which carried
out the automatic extraction of safety hazard information.
These studies verified the practicability and reliability of ma-
chine learning and deep learning in safety text classification.
However, they mainly used semantic analysis to extract text fea-
tures, and text features contain not only semantic information but
also syntactic structure information (Xu et al. 2021b). A syntactic
structure provides a rule for a sentence to express the structural re-
lationship between words. Especially for large-scale project safety
hazard texts, the syntactic structure can strengthen the text features
and improve the accuracy of text analysis. The syntactic structure is
the key to extracting the correlation information between words,
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 which can enrich text information and avoid or reduce information
loss caused by long-distance dependency (Hu et al. 2021; Ko and
Jeong 2020). An association network generated by syntactic struc-
ture analysis is graph data, which can represent the spatial relation-
ship between words and show the propagation path of information
(Lu et al. 2018). It obtains structural information on the network,
such as the degree distribution and communities, which further
enriches the text information. Graph data, as non-Euclidean spatial
data, do not meet translation invariance requirements and cannot be
addressed using traditional deep learning models (Hu et al. 2021).
GCNs, a specialized method for processing graph data, have been
applied to a number of fields (Gao and Huang 2021). Park et al.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTH CHINA UNIVERSITY OF on 08/17/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(2020) developed an attention-based graph convolutional network
(AGCN) leveraging contextual information and structural knowl-
edge to address the problem of key information loss. Hu et al.
(2021) proposed a graph convolutional network over interclause
dependency to fuse semantics and structural information, which
can automatically learn how to selectively attend the relevant
clauses useful for emotion cause analysis.
In summary, a GCN provides an effective method for extracting
and analyzing text syntactic structure features. If only syntactic
structure information is used for rule construction and feature ex-
traction, the nonlinear semantic relationship between words in sen-
tences will not be learned and utilized, which will easily lead to text
classification errors. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a large-
scale project safety hazard classification method fusing semantic
and structural features.
Methodology
Construction Text Information Quantization
Syntactic Structure Information
Text content is mainly expressed in the form of words, and the
words are combined according to specific syntactic rules to de-
scribe construction site safety hazard content. Syntactic structure
can accurately define and distinguish the role of the same words
in a sentence, which is significant for improving the accuracy of
text understanding (Barnes et al. 2021). For example, “The inside
of the distribution box is seriously polluted, which can easily cause
a short circuit in the distribution box” includes “distribution box”
twice, which have the same semantics, but the functions of the
words in the syntactic structure are not the same. The first “distri-
bution box” is used as the subject to describe the specific object of
pollution; the second “distribution box” is used as an attribute to
modify the “short circuit.” Therefore, it is necessary to judge the
syntactic structure relationship between words in safety hazard text
analysis. Syntactic dependency can reveal the syntactic structure
relationship between words, which can offset a deficiency of syn-
tactic structure information in semantic analysis (Guo et al. 2021).
HED
ATT
root Distribution box inner
Fig. 1. Syntactic dependency.
© ASCE 04022109-3
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(10): 04022109
In safety hazard text, the dependency between words includes
the subject–predicate relationship (SBV), verb–object relationship
(VOB), adjective-in-state relationship (ADV), and so on, but only
one core relationship (HED) is included (Fig. 1).
The Hanlp toolkit is used to calculate the syntactic dependency
between words in safety hazard texts, and an adjacency matrix
is constructed to show the syntactic structure, which is defined as
follows:
2 3
0 a12 a13 · · · a1n
6 7
6 a21 0 a23 · · · a2n 7
6 7
6 7
A ¼ 6 a31 a32 0 · · · a3n 7 ð1Þ
6 7
6 ··· ··· ··· ··· ··· 7
4 5
an1 an2 an3 · · · 0
where A = syntactic dependency-based adjacency matrix; n = num-
ber of words contained in sentence; and aij = syntactic dependency
between the ith and jth words, which is either 0 or 1 and defined by

1 if Rðwi ; wj Þ ≠ null
aij ¼ ð2Þ
0 if Rðwi ; wj Þ ¼ null
where Rðwi ; wj Þ = syntactic dependency calculated by Hanlp;
when there exists a syntactic dependency between word wi and
word wj , that is, Rðwi ; wj Þ ≠ null, aij is equal to 1. Otherwise, aij
is equal to 0.
Text Semantic Information
Syntactic dependency allows for the extraction of text information
at a structural level, but it is difficult to express the semantic rela-
tionship between words. To deeply analyze text semantics and fully
consider the contextual relationship, the BERT model is used to
calculate a word vector (Wang et al. 2020a). In Fig. 2, the input to
the BERT model includes three parts: word embedding, position
embedding, and segmentation embedding. Word embedding is the
sentence feature. Position embedding encodes the position of
words in the input text and quantifies the relative positional rela-
tionship of words. Segmentation embedding is mainly used to
distinguish sentences. When the text contains a sentence, the seg-
mentation embedding is all 0. Otherwise, segmentation embedding
will use different numbers to express sentences and realize sentence
distinction. The hidden layer of BERT mainly uses a bidirectional
transformer model for encoding and decoding text. The bidirec-
tional transformer model is used to analyze the textual context
and obtain text features (Devlin et al. 2018). The BERT model
needs to be pretrained to make the BERT model match the safety
hazard word vector calculation task. The pretraining mainly con-
tains two parts. One is the word masking model, which uses
[MASK] to randomly replace some words in the sentence and then
transmits the sentence to BERT to encode each word’s information.
Finally, the encoding information of [MASK] is used to predict the
CMP
ADV
pollution serious
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Output C TThe Tlamp Tis T[Mask] Tout T[SEP] TThere Texist Tsafety T[Mask] Tproblem T[SEP]

T1 T2 … Tk … T1 T2 … Tu … T1 T2 … Tn

Trm Trm … Trm … Trm Trm … Trm … Trm Trm … Trm

BRET

Trm Trm … Trm … Trm Trm … Trm … Trm Trm … Trm

… … … … …
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTH CHINA UNIVERSITY OF on 08/17/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

E1 E2 Ek E1 E2 Eu E1 E2 En

Embedding E[CLS] EThe Elamp Eis E[Mask] Eout E[SEP] EThere Eexist Esafety E[Mask] Eproblem E[SEP]

Masked [CLS] The lamp is [Mask] out [SEP] There exist safety [Mask] problem [SEP]

Input [CLS] The lamp is burnt out [SEP] There exist safety hazard problem [SEP]

Fig. 2. BERT model.

correct word for this position (Devlin et al. 2018; Li et al. 2021a).
The other is the prediction of the next sentence, inputting sentences
into the BERT model to predict the sequence of sentences. By
pretraining on safety hazard text, the semantic features are deeply
extracted, and the word vector is obtained.
Inputting the construction site safety hazard text into the
BERT model calculates the text word vector, and then the word
vector is used to express the correlation between words, which is
defined as
text information graph G ¼ ðN; EÞ, N is a node of the graph, that is,
it represents the syntactic structure correlation and semantic infor-
mation correlation obtained in the section “Construction Text
Information Quantization” (Fig. 3).
For a k-layer GCN, the initial input data are x ∈ Rn×m , where n
is the node number of Graph G and m is the dimension of the word
vector. Thus, the input of the GCN is defined as
X ð0Þ ¼ x ð5Þ

Vi × Vj where X ð0Þ = initial input of the GCN model; and X = word vector
Sij ¼ ð3Þ set calculated by BERT. The normalized matrix X ð0Þ is regarded as
jV i j × jV j j
input, text features are propagated among layers of the GCN, and
where Sij = similarity between words i and j in sentence; and the feature propagation mode is defined as
V i and V j = word vectors of words i and j calculated by BERT.
~ −12 A~ D
X ðkÞ ¼ σðD ~ −12 X ðk−1Þ W ðk−1Þ Þ ð6Þ
A semantic correlation matrix is built by combining the word
co-occurrence and similarity to represent the semantic information,
where X ðkÞ = k th-layer output of GCN; X ðk−1Þ = k th-layer input of
which is defined as follows:
GCN; σð·Þ = activation function; Wðk−1Þ = weight matrix; D ~ =
2 3
1 S12 S13 · · · S1n degree matrix of Graph G; and A~ = adjacency matrix that contains
6 7 the syntactic structure and semantic information, which is deter-
6 S21 1 S23 · · · S2n 7
6 7 mined as
6 7
S ¼ 6 S31 S32 1 · · · S3n 7 ð4Þ
6 7
6 ··· ··· ··· ··· ··· 7 A~ ¼ A þ S ð7Þ
4 5
Sn1 Sn2 Sn3 · · · 1 The quantified construction site safety hazard text is input into
the GCN model, and the text syntactic structure and semantic in-
where S = semantic correlation matrix; and Sij = similarity formation are analyzed by Eq. (6); the encoding result is obtained
between ith and jth words in the sentence. as follows:
ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ
X ¼ fX 1 ; X 2 ; X 3 ; : : : ; X C g ð8Þ
GCN-Based Text Information Encoding
ðkÞ
Based on the syntactic structure–based adjacency matrix and se- where H = text feature with GCN encoding; X 1 = first sentence in
mantic correlation matrix, a GCN is used to encode the syntactic safety hazard text; and C = total number of sentences.
structure and semantic information. The information transfer me-
chanism of the GCN is similar to that of a multilayer perceptron,
BiLSTM-Based Text Information Decoding
and the difference between them is that the GCN has graph data
to capture the information of adjacent nodes (Hu et al. 2021; Considering the long-distance dependencies between text features,
Wang et al. 2020b). Unlike the existing GCN model (Zhou BiLSTM is used to decode the text features obtained using GCN
et al. 2020; Bai et al. 2021), this study takes graph data built by an encoding. BiLSTM provides a bidirectional mechanism that can
adjacency matrix and semantic correlation matrix as input, which deeply analyze text features from two different directions (Zhang
contains the syntactic structure and semantic information. For the et al. 2020; Zhong et al. 2020c). It is composed of multiple long

© ASCE 04022109-4 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(10): 04022109

 Hidden Layer f11 f2
e11e11 e2 e2
f11 f2
e1 e2 f2
f1
f3 f4
e3 e3 f4
e4 e4 f3
e3 e4 f5
e5 e5 f3 f4
f5
e5 f5
f7
e6 e6 e7 e7 f6 f7
e8 e8 e7 f6 f8
f7
e6 f6 f8
e8 f8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTH CHINA UNIVERSITY OF on 08/17/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Graph structure Graph feature extraction Graph feature

Fig. 3. GCN model.

Ct-1

tanh

Forget gate Input gate tanh Output gate

Fig. 4. LSTM unit.

short-term memory (LSTM) units, and each LSTM unit includes
an input gate, forget gate, and output gate (Ren et al. 2021)
(Fig. 4). The input gate selectively inputs new information into
the LSTM unit. The forget gate selectively forgets information in
the LSTM unit, controlling the amount of information that needs to
be forgotten in the previous LSTM unit. The output gate controls
how much information exists in the current LSTM unit to input into
the external state (Li et al. 2021b).
The conversion relationship of the text feature encoded by the
GCN model between the three gates is defined as follows:
ðkÞ
f t ¼ σðwf · ½ht−1 ; X t  þ bf Þ
ðkÞ
it ¼ σðwi · ½ht−1 ; X t  þ bi Þ
ðkÞ
ot ¼ σðwo · ½ht−1 ; X t  þ bo Þ
where ft = forget gate; it = input gate; ot = output gate; = text
feature encoded by GCN; ht−1 = external state of previous LSTM
unit; and w and b = weight vector and bias vector of each gate,
respectively. The external state ht of the LSTM unit is calculated
by combining the input, output, and forget gates, defined as
ht ¼ ot ⊙ tanhðCt Þ
Ct ¼ f t ⊙Ct−1 þ it ⊙C~ t
where Ct = internal state at current moment; Ct−1 = internal state of
previous LSTM unit; and C~ t = candidate state of text information at
current moment.
The text features encoded by the GCN are input into the
! !
BiLSTM model to calculate the forward hidden state H ¼ f h 1 ;
! !
h 2 ; : : : ; h u g and the backward hidden state H ¼ f h 1 ; h 2 ; : : : ;
h u g. The forward and backward hidden states are connected to
form a text feature decoding result:
!
H ¼ ½H ; H  ð11Þ
where H = text feature decoding result based on BiLSTM model;
and [,] = concatenation operations.
ð9Þ Construction Safety Hazard Text Classification Model
ðkÞ
Xt We propose a GSHDLM combining BERT, a GCN, and BiLSTM
to fuse syntactic structure and semantic information and achieve
intelligent large-scale project safety hazard recognition (Fig. 5).
The method includes five layers: input layer, graph construction
layer, text encoding layer, text decoding layer, and output layer.
They are described as follows:
Input layer: The input layer includes two aspects. One is the
syntactic structure analysis of the safety hazard text, which uses
ð10Þ Hanlp to analyze and extract the syntactic relationship between

© ASCE 04022109-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(10): 04022109

 w1 w2 w3 … wn w2
w1
w1 1 1.8 1.7 … 0.5
w2 1.8 1 0.6 … 1.7
w3 1.7 0.6 1 … 0.6

Encoding Layer
w2 w3
… … … … … …
wn
wn 0.5 1.7 0.6 … 1
Graph Structure Layer
w6 w4
…

w1 w2 w3 … wn w1 w2 w3 … wn
w1 0 1 1 …
…
0 w1 1 0.8 0.7 … 0.5
w2 1 0 0 … 1 w2 0.8 1 0.6 … 0.7
w3 1 0 0 … 0 w3 0.7 0.6 1 … 0.6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTH CHINA UNIVERSITY OF on 08/17/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

… … … … … … … … … … … …
wn 0 1 0 … 0 wn 0.5 0.7 0.6 … 1

Decoding Layer
LSTM LSTM LSTM … LSTM

Syntactic
actic structure BERT … LSTM
LSTM LSTM LSTM

Input Output
Layer W1 W2 W3 … Wn W1 W2 W3 … Wn … Layer

Fig. 5. Graph structure–based hybrid deep learning method workflow.

words. The other is the semantic analysis of safety hazard text.
BERT is used to analyze the textual context, extract the text
semantic information, and obtain a word vector from the seman-
tic level.
Graph construction layer: The graph construction layer uses
the syntactic structure relationship and the word vector input
from the input layer to build a safety hazard graph structure, which
takes the words as nodes and uses the syntactic and semantic
relationship between words as edges. Notably, semantic relations
between words are expressed as the similarity calculated by word
vector.
Text encoding layer: The text encoding layer uses the GCN
model to analyze the graph structure obtained in the graph con-
struction layer. It aims to realize safety hazard text encoding from
the level of the syntactic structure and semantic information and
convert the graph data into a text feature vector, which is regarded
as the key data for feature decoding to realize safety hazard depth
analysis.
Text decoding layer: The text decoding layer takes the en-
coded text features as input, and the BiLSTM model is used to
analyze the text features in the forward and backward directions
and obtain long-distance dependency. The purpose of this layer
is to strengthen the text feature through the decoding process,
which is helpful to improve the accuracy of safety hazard text
classification.
Output layer: The output layer classifies the safety hazard ac-
cording to the extracted text feature. The text feature decoded using
BiLSTM is taken as input, and Dropout technology is used to pre-
vent overfitting. The Softmax classifier is adopted to calculate the
probability of each safety hazard category and obtain the text
classification result:
Y ¼ soft maxðHW 0 Þ
where W 0 = weight matrix; H = text feature obtained from
encoding-decoding mechanism; and Y = safety hazard text category
prediction matrix. The category of each safety hazard text can be
defined by analyzing the prediction matrix.
Case Study
Text Data Collection and Preprocessing
Taking the safety hazard text derived from a hydraulic engineering
construction site as the data source, a total of 28,756 safety hazard
texts were collected; each text recorded a safety hazard on the
construction site, which contained the location, time, and content
of safety hazards. Combining the text characteristics and national
standards, the hydraulic engineering safety hazard was divided
into 12 categories: vehicle damage, electrocution, falling accident,
collapse, incivilization construction, object strike, mechanical
damage, lifting injury, violation behavior (e.g., illegal operations,
illegal command, violation of labor discipline), fire, explosion, and
drowning.
Owing to the wide construction scope and complex procedures
of hydraulic engineering, the investigation of safety hazards mainly
depends on employees. Employees upload the safety hazards at the
construction site by the safety hazard management APP, and then
managers compile a list of safety hazards based on the uploaded
safety hazards (Lin et al. 2019). The safety hazard list can reflect
in real time the safety management status of the construction site.
However, the safety hazard category is not clearly marked in the
list. It is necessary to mark safety hazard texts before classification
calculation. The safety hazard texts are marked by analyzing the
relationship between key information and category. For example,
“the insulation rubber of the cable is damaged and the cable core is
exposed” includes key information, for example, “cable,” “insula-
tion rubber,” and “damaged,” which is related to electrocution, so
the category of this text is defined as electrocution.
The marked text is divided into three parts: (1) training set,
which is used to extract text features and optimize text data sam-
ð12Þ ples; the number of training sets is 20,540; (2) validating set, which
is used to adjust the parameter values and evaluate the computing
ability of the model; the data volume of the validating set is 4,108;
and (3) testing set, which is used to evaluate the generalization abil-
ity of the model; the data volume of the testing set is 4,108. Table 1
shows the division of the texts.

© ASCE 04022109-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(10): 04022109

 Table 1. Hydraulic engineering safety hazard text sample
Label Content Training Validating Testing
Vehicle damage There is no edge warning on the road, which is prone to vehicle damage. 750 150 150
Electrocution The welding machine is placed directly on the steel bars without insulation 3,480 696 696
protection.
Falling accident The gap in the railings was not restored in time after the rack was removed. 3,060 612 612
Collapse Rock fissures are obviously open and fragmented, and there is a risk of 1,070 214 214
collapse.
Incivilization construction The construction site materials were messy, and the rubbish was not cleaned up 3,185 637 637
in time.
Object strike A small amount of bamboo gangplank was placed on the side slope frame, and 2,235 447 447
no binding measures were taken.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTH CHINA UNIVERSITY OF on 08/17/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Mechanical damage Woodworking chainsaws did not meet the requirements for tool and 1,150 230 230
equipment.
Lifting injury The slag cleaning workers did not take avoidance measures when the excavator 910 182 182
was operated.
Violation behavior Workers did not wear safety helmets correctly. 910 182 182
Fire The place where the welding machine is put was not equipped with a fire 1,615 323 323
extinguisher.
Explosion Oxygen and acetylene cylinder were placed in the open air, which may cause 1,305 261 261
explosion hazards.
Drowning There were no warnings in the water-collecting well, and there were safety 870 174 174
hazards.
Total 20,540 4,108 4,108

Python 3.6 was used as the programming language for devel-
oping a computing environment, with PyTorch being imported for
handling the GCN and BiLSTM models. The model was designed
with the following parameters: number of LSTM units ¼ 128,
embedding dimension ¼ 768, hidden layer size ¼ 128, number of
iterations ¼ 100, dropout probability ¼ 0.5, learning rate ¼ 0.001,
and neurons in the GCN layer ¼ 128.
Model Performance Evaluation
For construction site safety hazard texts, BERT is used to calculate
word vectors and obtain similarities between words. An adjacency
matrix is obtained by combining similarity and syntactic structure
correlations. Taking the graph constructed by the correlation matrix
as the input, the GCN is used to carry out text feature encoding, and
then BiLSTM is used to complete text feature decoding and output
the safety hazard classification result. Precision, recall rates, and F1
score metrics (F1) are widely used as performance indicators to
evaluate a model’s performance (Zhong et al. 2020a; Tian et al.
2021). The results are shown in Table 2.
The results in Table 2 show that the average precision rate, recall
rate, and F1 value of the GSHDLM proposed in this study are
87.12%, 86.59%, and 86.46%, respectively, which can accurately
identify potential safety hazards on construction sites. This method
has good performance on safety hazard recognition, such as vehi-
cle damage, electrocution, incivilization construction, mechanical
damage, lifting injury fire, explosion, and so on. The F1 value ex-
ceeds 85%. The accuracy of the model was verified by comparing
the TextCNN and BiLSTM methods. As seen in Table 2, the aver-
age F1 value of the GSHDLM was 86.46%, and the accuracy rate
was 86.56%; the average F1 values of the TextCNN and BiLSTM
methods were 80.42% and 79.56%, respectively. Compared with
the TextCNN method, the precision rate, recall rate, and F1 value
of the model in this study were 5.60%, 5.92%, and 6.04% higher,
respectively. Compared with the BiLSTM method, the accuracy
rate, recall rate, and F1 value of the model in this study were
6.21%, 6.53%, and 6.90% higher, respectively. Except for electro-
cution, the F1 value of the GSHDLM was higher than the TextCNN
and BiLSTM methods in all categories, demonstrating that the
GSHDLM has higher accuracy in safety hazard recognition.

Table 2. Safety hazard text classification performance

GSHDLM TextCNN BiLSTM
Label Precision Recall F1 Precision Recall F1 Precision Recall F1 Support
Vehicle damage 0.9259 0.8333 0.8772 0.8182 0.8400 0.8289 0.7857 0.8067 0.7961 150
Electrocution 0.8873 0.9842 0.9332 0.8090 0.9856 0.8886 0.9342 0.9784 0.9558 696
Falling accident 0.8761 0.8088 0.8411 0.7606 0.8203 0.7893 0.8177 0.8284 0.8231 612
Collapse 0.7500 0.9112 0.8228 0.8410 0.7664 0.8020 0.6215 0.7290 0.6710 214
Incivilization construction 0.8951 0.8980 0.8966 0.9095 0.6939 0.7872 0.8106 0.8666 0.8376 637
Object strike 0.7382 0.8076 0.7714 0.6587 0.6779 0.6681 0.7335 0.6711 0.7009 447
Mechanical damage 0.8565 0.8565 0.8565 0.8895 0.7348 0.8048 0.6867 0.6957 0.6911 230
Lifting injury 0.8619 0.8571 0.8595 0.8038 0.9231 0.8593 0.6371 0.9066 0.7483 182
Violation behavior 0.9244 0.6044 0.7309 0.8015 0.5769 0.6709 0.6912 0.5165 0.5912 182
Fire 0.9759 0.8762 0.9233 0.9618 0.7802 0.8615 0.9660 0.7926 0.8707 323
Explosion 0.8519 0.9693 0.9068 0.7823 0.9502 0.8581 0.7695 0.9080 0.8330 261
Drowning 0.9542 0.7184 0.8197 0.7602 0.8563 0.8054 0.9524 0.3448 0.5063 174
Average 0.8712 0.8659 0.8646 0.8152 0.8067 0.8042 0.8091 0.8006 0.7956 4,108

© ASCE 04022109-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(10): 04022109

 Table 3. Ablation study for GSHDLM model
No. Syntactic structure BERT GCN BiLSTM Precision Recall F1 Accuracy
1 Yes Yes Yes Yes 0.8712 0.8659 0.8646 0.8656
2 Yes Yes Yes No 0.8309 0.8242 0.8201 0.8234
3 Yes No Yes Yes 0.8447 0.8406 0.8359 0.8406
4 Yes Yes No Yes 0.8162 0.8089 0.8040 0.8089
5 No Yes Yes Yes 0.8237 0.8165 0.8118 0.8165

The method proposed in this study includes four parts: syn- construction site safety hazard text. Existing text classification
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTH CHINA UNIVERSITY OF on 08/17/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tactic structure, BERT-based semantic information, a GCN, and
BiLSTM. To understand the GSHDLM at length, an ablation study
was conducted on the proposed model by removing some compo-
nents or features from the model to verify the importance of each
part. Table 3 provides the results.
In Table 3, we observe that removing BiLSTM from the
GSHDLM model led to a poor F1 score of 0.8201, the accuracy of
text classification dropped by 4.22%, and the precision, recall, and
F1 values dropped by 4.03%, 4.17%, and 4.45%, respectively,
which confirmed the significance of BiLSTM for safety hazard
classification. It has been proven that BiLSTM can capture contex-
tualized information and strengthen text features. Without BERT-
based semantic information the accuracy rate of the GSHDLM
decreased by 2.50%. This confirmed the importance of the seman-
tic information extracted by BERT in safety hazard analysis. When
the GCN was removed from the GSHDLM, the F1 score and ac-
curacy rate dropped to 0.8040 and 0.8089, respectively. We specu-
late that the GCN can accurately and fully capture the syntactic
structure and semantic information and can avoid the loss of in-
formation in the feature extraction process. Removing the syntactic
structure degraded the performance of our model’s accuracy rate by
nearly 5% because after dropping syntactic structure the GSHDLM
could not apply all the syntactic information that was necessary to
the text classification task. This showed the importance of syntactic
structure in safety hazard text analysis.
Discussion
Efficient and accurate safety hazard recognition is an important
approach to improving the efficiency of safety management for
methods use text semantics to deeply extract potential relation-
ships. However, syntactic structure and semantic information have
the same importance in the text analysis process, which can affect
the text classification effect. There are many technical terms in a
large-scale project safety hazard, the same technical term may
have different utilities in the same safety hazard text, and it is
difficult using semantic analysis to identify differences in syntac-
tic structures. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the syntactic
structure and obtain the syntactic information of a text. Although
existing studies demonstrated the importance of syntactic struc-
ture in text classification, it is rarely applied in the text analysis
of construction site safety hazards. This study proposes a safety
hazard text classification model based on syntactic structure and
semantic information that aims to improve the safety hazard clas-
sification efficiency. Taking a hydraulic engineering construction
site safety hazard as an example, compared with existing text
classification methods, the superiority of our model was con-
firmed (Fig. 6).
Fig. 6 shows the classification effect of different methods.
Note that the model proposed in this study had the best effect
on the classification of hydraulic engineering text, and the accu-
racy rate was 86.56%. Compared with deep learning models, such
as Region-CNN (RCNN), BiLSTM, bidirectional gated recurrent
unit (BiGRU), and BERT, the accuracy of our model is 5.13%,
5.89%, 6.50%, 7.06%, and 7.88% higher, respectively. The afore-
mentioned methods only consider the semantic relationship and
lack syntactic structure analysis, which leads to the drop. FastText
has the lowest accuracy, with an accuracy rate of 72.36%. Fast-
Text is a shallow network, and it is had a hard time carrying out
the deep mining of safety hazard features. This indicates that a

90.00%
86.56%

85.00%
81.43%
80.67% 80.06% 79.50%
80.00% 78.68%
Accuracy

75.00%
72.36%

70.00%

65.00%
Our model RCNN TextCNN BiLSTM BiGRU BERT FastText
Text classification methods

Fig. 6. Performance comparison of different text classification models.

© ASCE 04022109-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(10): 04022109

 deep network structure can improve the accuracy of the analysis
of hydraulic engineering safety hazard text. Unlike the aforemen-
tioned research methods, this study fully considered text syntactic
structure information. BERT was used to extract text semantic
features and build an encoding and decoding mechanism based
on a GCN and BiLSTM. It not only ensured the comprehensive-
ness of text information extraction but also improved the accuracy
of text classification.
Compared with existing safety analysis methods and text intel-
ligent classification models, the value of the method proposed in
this paper is reflected in three aspects. First, BERT is used to cal-
culate word vectors and obtain semantic similarities between
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTH CHINA UNIVERSITY OF on 08/17/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
words. A graph structure fusing syntactic and semantic informa-
tion is used to quantify safety hazard texts, which enriches the text
quantification method and improves the accuracy and comprehen-
siveness of text feature extraction. An ablation study indicated that
when only semantic information or syntactic structure was consid-
ered, the text classification accuracy was 84.06% and 80.89%,
respectively, lower than our model considering syntactic structure
and semantic information. This illustrates the importance of syn-
tactic structure and semantic information in safety hazard text
classification.
Second, a GCN model is introduced into the safety hazard text
deep analysis method to process the graph structure and carry out
the encoding of syntactic structure and semantic information.
Furthermore, a BiLSTM-based safety hazard text decoding mecha-
nism is proposed to mine text features and represent the long-
distance dependency of text features, which can show the complex
relationship between text features and ensure the accuracy of syn-
tactic and semantic analysis. This method enriches the construction
text intelligent analysis theory system, which has important guid-
ing significance for improving the accuracy of text classification.
By comparing the safety hazard classification effects of BiLSTM
and a GCN, the classification accuracy of a single method is
80.89% and 82.34%, respectively, which are lower than our model.
The results prove that the GCN and BiLSTM-based safety hazard
encoding–decoding mechanism can effectively improve the text
classification accuracy.
Third, this study provides an intelligent and accurate safety haz-
ard recognition method that can quickly determine the category of
safety hazards on construction sites. Furthermore, it is unnecessary
to preprocess uploaded safety hazard records, and the records can
be directly input into the model to obtain the corresponding safety
hazard categories, which improves the application efficiency of the
model and ensures the timeliness of safety hazard analysis. The
output safety hazard categories can be used to cluster texts, analyze
the occurrence rule of safety hazards, and formulate safety hazard
management measures. It is helpful manage safety hazard texts
systematically.
Limitation
The method proposed in this study has high accuracy and reliabil-
ity and can efficiently identify construction site safety hazards.
However, there is still room for further refinement. Construction
site safety hazard texts contain a lot of information, and a safety
hazard text may contain one or more safety hazard categories. This
study defines each safety hazard text as corresponding to a safety
hazard category, but it does not consider a multilabel safety hazard
text problem, which affects the comprehensiveness of text informa-
tion mining. Therefore, future work should build a multilabel safety
hazard text classification model to comprehensively mine safety
hazard information and improve the accuracy of safety hazard rec-
ognition. Meanwhile, current research mainly focuses on safety
© ASCE 04022109-9
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(10): 04022109
hazard text classification. It is necessary to automatically obtain
safety hazard solution measures based on classified texts and form
a construction site safety hazard intelligent management system.
Therefore, future work will be to establish a question-and-answer
model for classified construction site safety hazards and automati-
cally generate safety hazard management measures.
Conclusions
For large-scale project construction sites with massive text and
various safety hazard categories, an intelligent text classification
method is helpful to improve the efficiency of hazard management.
The safety hazard information of large-scale projects is highly frag-
mented, which increases the difficulty of text classification. Large-
scale project construction texts record involve a large number of
technical terms, and the accuracy of technical term descriptions
will directly affect text semantic analysis. Therefore, an intelligent
classification method for large-scale projects combining syntactic
structure and semantic information was built to automatically rec-
ognize construction site safety hazards.
1. BERT is used to calculate a word vector and obtain the similarity
between words, and a similarity-based adjacency matrix is built
to represent semantic information. The syntactic structure ex-
tracted by Hanlp is used to calculate the syntactic relationship
between words and form an adjacency matrix. A graph structure
fusing syntactic and semantic information is constructed to
quantify text content. Based on the adjacency matrix, words are
taken as nodes, and semantic and syntactic information is taken
as edges to construct the graph structure and quantify text con-
tent. The graph data are regarded as the basic data of text mining
to carry out text feature mining from the syntactic structure and
semantic information levels.
2. We proposed a graph structure–based hybrid deep learning
method to determine complex syntactic and semantic relation-
ships and identify large-scale project construction site safety
hazards. A GCN model was used to encode syntactic and se-
mantic features, and the encoded features were decoded using
BiLSTM. Twelve safety hazard categories were established by
hydraulic engineering construction site texts and relevant stan-
dards. Safety hazard texts were used to train the intelligent clas-
sification model, and the recognition accuracy was 86.56%.
To reflect the superiority of the model in safety hazard process-
ing, compared with other deep learning models, such as CNN,
RNN, RCNN, and so on, it was concluded that the model
proposed in this study was superior to other text intelligent clas-
sification models. Meanwhile, an ablation study was executed
to prove the effect of syntactic structure, BERT-based semantic
information, GCN, and BiLSTM in the model and verify the
accuracy and reliability of the safety hazard intelligent classifi-
cation model.
3. The GSHDLM adopts a new deep learning method and graph
structure fusing syntactic structure and semantic information to
carry out large-scale project construction site safety hazard in-
telligent classification within a short time so that text features
are not only limited to text semantics but also fully consider the
impact of syntactic structure. It is helpful for improving the clas-
sification efficiency of safety hazards. The research effort en-
riches the theoretical system of large-scale project construction
text analysis, which can provide necessary key information for
construction site safety hazard management and decision-
making, and it is an important prerequisite to perform intelligent
construction safety management.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Data Availability Statement
Data generated and analyzed during this study are available from
the corresponding author by request.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China (Grant 52179139) and the Open Fund of Hubei
Key Laboratory of Construction and Management in Hydropower
Engineering (Grant 2020KSD05).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTH CHINA UNIVERSITY OF on 08/17/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
References
Alam, K. M., N. Siddique, and H. Adeli. 2020. “Dynamic ensemble learn-
ing algorithm for neural networks.” Neural Comput. Appl. 32 (12):
8675–8690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-019-04359-7.
Bai, Y., C. Li, Z. Lin, Y. Wu, Y. Miao, Y. Liu, and Y. Xu. 2021. “Efficient
data loader for fast sampling-based GNN training on large graphs.”
IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 32 (10): 2541–2556. https://doi
.org/10.1109/TPDS.2021.3065737.
Baker, H., M. R. Hallowell, and A. J.-P. Tixier. 2020. “Automatically learn-
ing construction injury precursors from text.” Autom. Constr. 118 (Oct):
103145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103145.
Barnes, J., R. Kurtz, S. Oepen, L. Ovrelid, and E. Velldal. 2021. “Structured
sentiment analysis as dependency graph parsing.” In Proc., Joint
Conf. of 59th Annual Meeting of the Association-for-Computational-
Linguistics (ACL)/11th Int. Joint Conf. on Natural Language Process-
ing (IJCNLP)/6th Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP
(RepL4NLP), 3387–3402. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computa-
tional Linguistics.
Chen, S., J. Xi, Y. Chen, and J. Zhao. 2022. “Association mining of near
misses in hydropower engineering construction based on convolutional
neural network text classification.” Comput. Intell. Neurosci.
2022 (Jan): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4851615.
Cheng, M.-Y., D. Kusoemo, and R. A. Gosno. 2020. “Text mining-based
construction site accident classification using hybrid supervised ma-
chine learning.” Autom. Constr. 118 (Oct): 103265. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.autcon.2020.103265.
Chi, N.-W., K.-Y. Lin, N. El-Gohary, and S.-H. Hsieh. 2016. “Evaluating
the strength of text classification categories for supporting construction
field inspection.” Autom. Constr. 64 (Apr): 78–88. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.autcon.2016.01.001.
Chokor, A., H. Naganathan, W. K. Chong, and M. El Asmar. 2016.
“Analyzing Arizona OSHA injury reports using unsupervised machine
learning.” Procedia Eng. 145 (Jan): 1588–1593. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.proeng.2016.04.200.
Devlin, J., M. W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova. 2018. “Bert:
Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understand-
ing.” Preprint, submitted October 11, 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1810
.04805.
Ding, L. Y., and H. Li. 2013. “Information technologies in safety manage-
ment of large-scale infrastructure projects.” Autom. Constr. 34 (Sep):
1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.10.016.
Fang, W., H. Luo, S. Xu, P. E. D. Love, Z. Lu, and C. Ye. 2020. “Automated
text classification of near-misses from safety reports: An improved deep
learning approach.” Adv. Eng. Inf. 44 (Apr): 101060. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.aei.2020.101060.
Feng, D., and H. Chen. 2021. “A small samples training framework for
deep Learning-based automatic information extraction: Case study of
construction accident news reports analysis.” Adv. Eng. Inf. 47 (Jan):
101256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2021.101256.
Gao, W., and H. Huang. 2021. “A gating context-aware text classification
model with BERT and graph convolutional networks.” J. Intell. Fuzzy
Syst. 40 (3): 4331–4343. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-201051.
Goh, Y. M., and C. U. Ubeynarayana. 2017. “Construction accident nar-
rative classification: An evaluation of text mining techniques.” Accid.
© ASCE 04022109-10
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(10): 04022109
Anal. Prev. 108 (Nov): 122–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017
.08.026.
Guo, Q., X. Qiu, X. Xue, and Z. Zhang. 2021. “Syntax-guided text gen-
eration via graph neural network.” Sci. China Inf. Sci. 64 (5): 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-019-2740-1.
Han, Y., Y. Diao, Z. Yin, R. Jin, J. Kangwa, and O. J. Ebohon. 2021.
“Immersive technology-driven investigations on influence factors of
cognitive load incurred in construction site hazard recognition, analysis
and decision making.” Adv. Eng. Inf. 48 (Apr): 101298. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.aei.2021.101298.
Hong, Y., H. Xie, G. Bhumbra, and I. Brilakis. 2021. “Comparing natu-
ral language processing methods to cluster construction schedules.”
J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 147 (10): 04021136. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002165.
Hu, G., G. Lu, and Y. Zhao. 2021. “FSS-GCN: A graph convolutional
networks with fusion of semantic and structure for emotion cause
analysis.” Knowl.-Based Syst. 212 (Jan): 106584. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.knosys.2020.106584.
Kim, T., and S. Chi. 2019. “Accident case retrieval and analyses: Using
natural language processing in the construction industry.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage. 145 (3): 04019004. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO
.1943-7862.0001625.
Ko, T., and H. D. Jeong. 2020. “Syntactic approach to extracting key
elements of work modification cause in change-order documents.”
In Proc., Construction Research Congress (CRC) on Construction
Research and Innovation to Transform Society, 134–142. Tucson: Con-
struct Res Council.
Lecun, Y., Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton. 2015. “Deep learning.” Nature
521 (7553): 436–444. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539.
Li, R., L. Wang, Z. Jiang, D. Liu, M. Zhao, and X. Lu. 2021a. “Incremental
BERT with commonsense representations for multi-choice reading
comprehension.” Multimedia Tools Appl. 80 (21–23): 32311–32333.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-021-11197-0.
Li, X., M. Cui, J. Li, R. Bai, Z. Lu, and U. Aickelin. 2021b. “A hybrid
medical text classification framework: Integrating attentive rule con-
struction and neural network.” Neurocomputing 443 (Jul): 345–355.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2021.02.069.
Lin, J.-R., Z.-Z. Hu, J.-L. Li, and L.-M. Chen. 2020. “Understanding
on-site inspection of construction projects based on keyword extraction
and topic modeling.” IEEE Access 8 (Nov): 198503–198517. https://doi
.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3035214.
Lin, P., P. Wei, Q. Fan, and W. Chen. 2019. “CNN model for mining safety
hazard data from a construction site.” [In Chinese.] J. Tsinghua Univ.
59 (8): 628–634. https://doi.org/10.16511/j.cnki.qhdxxb.2019.26.008.
Liu, J., Z. S. Y. Wong, H.-Y. So, and K. L. Tsui. 2021. “Evaluating resam-
pling methods and structured features to improve fall incident report
identification by the severity level.” J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 28 (8):
1756–1764. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocab048.
Lu, J., J. Xuan, G. Zhang, and X. Luo. 2018. “Structural property-
aware multilayer network embedding for latent factor analysis.” Pattern
Recognit. 76 (Apr): 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2017
.11.004.
Park, C., J. Park, and S. Park. 2020. “AGCN: Attention-based graph con-
volutional networks for drug-drug interaction extraction.” Expert Syst.
Appl. 159 (Nov): 113538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113538.
Qiu, Z., Q. Liu, X. Li, J. Zhang, and Y. Zhang. 2021. “Construction and
analysis of a coal mine accident causation network based on text min-
ing.” Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 153 (Sep): 320–328. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.psep.2021.07.032.
Ren, Q., M. Li, H. Li, and Y. Shen. 2021. “A novel deep learning predic-
tion model for concrete dam displacements using interpretable mixed
attention mechanism.” Adv. Eng. Inf. 50 (Oct): 101407. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.aei.2021.101407.
Salama, D. M., and N. M. El-Gohary. 2016. “Semantic text classifica-
tion for supporting automated compliance checking in construction.”
J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 30 (1): 04014106. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000301.
Tian, D., M. Li, J. Shi, Y. Shen, and S. Han. 2021. “On-site text classifi-
cation and knowledge mining for large-scale projects construction by
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 integrated intelligent approach.” Adv. Eng. Inf. 49 (Aug): 101355.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2021.101355.
Tixier, A. J. P., M. R. Hallowell, B. Rajagopalan, and D. Bowman. 2016.
“Automated content analysis for construction safety: A natural language
processing system to extract precursors and outcomes from unstruc-
tured injury reports.” Autom. Constr. 62 (Feb): 45–56. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.autcon.2015.11.001.
Wang, Z., Z. Huang, and J. Gao. 2020a. “Chinese text classification method
based on BERT word embedding.” In Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Math-
ematics and Artificial Intelligence (ICMAI), 66–71. New York: Asso-
ciation for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3395260
.3395273.
Wang, Z., C.-H. Wu, Q.-B. Li, B. Yan, and K.-F. Zheng. 2020b. “Encoding
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTH CHINA UNIVERSITY OF on 08/17/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
text information with graph convolutional networks for personality rec-
ognition.” Appl. Sci. 10 (12): 4081. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10124081.
Xu, N., L. Ma, Q. Liu, L. Wang, and Y. Deng. 2021a. “An improved text
mining approach to extract safety risk factors from construction acci-
dent reports.” Saf. Sci. 138 (Jun): 105216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci
.2021.105216.
Xu, N., L. Ma, L. Wang, Y. Deng, and G. Ni. 2021b. “Extracting domain
knowledge elements of construction safety management: Rule-based
approach using Chinese natural language processing.” J. Manage.
Eng. 37 (2): 04021001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000870.
© ASCE 04022109-11
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2022, 148(10): 04022109
Zhang, F., H. Fleyeh, X. Wang, and M. Lu. 2019. “Construction site
accident analysis using text mining and natural language processing
techniques.” Autom. Constr. 99 (Mar): 238–248. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.autcon.2018.12.016.
Zhang, J., L. Zi, Y. Hou, D. Deng, W. Jiang, and M. Wang. 2020.
“A C-BiLSTM approach to classify construction accident reports.”
Appl. Sci. 10 (17): 5754. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10175754.
Zhong, B., X. Pan, P. E. D. Love, L. Ding, and W. Fang. 2020a. “Deep
learning and network analysis: Classifying and visualizing accident
narratives in construction.” Autom. Constr. 113 (May): 103089. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103089.
Zhong, B., X. Pan, P. E. D. Love, J. Sun, and C. Tao. 2020b. “Hazard
analysis: A deep learning and text mining framework for accident
prevention.” Adv. Eng. Inf. 46 (Oct): 101152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.aei.2020.101152.
Zhong, B., X. Xing, H. Luo, Q. Zhou, H. Li, T. Rose, and W. Fang. 2020c.
“Deep learning-based extraction of construction procedural constraints
from construction regulations.” Adv. Eng. Inf. 43 (Jan): 101003. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2019.101003.
Zhou, J., J. X. Huang, Q. V. Hu, and L. He. 2020. “SK-GCN: Modeling
Syntax and Knowledge via Graph Convolutional Network for aspect-
level sentiment classification.” Knowl.-Based Syst. 205 (Oct): 106292.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2020.106292.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.