REHOUSE public report: LEVEL(s)-based MEL framework for REHOUSE RPs and demos
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Summary: This document represents the REHOUSE report D3.1 “LEVEL(s)-based MEL framework for REHOUSE RPs and demos” developed within work page (WP) 3 (Measurement, evaluation and learning methodology, impact assessment and platforms specifications). It presents firstly LEVEL(s) [1] framework that defines methods on how to assess key performance indicators (KPIs) for the evaluation of environmental performance of both renovations and new buildings. To complement this framework, an inventory of technical and social KPIs defined in other frameworks are presented: Regional/National/International regulations and standards; Scientific articles/ technical studies; Experience feedback from partners’ previous projects; Social frameworks. The frameworks identified cover the countries of REHOUSE demonstration sites (Italy, Greece, Hungary and France) as well as include international context. Although the inventory of frameworks included an important number of regulations, studies and protocols, only the most complete and interesting ones have been incorporated in this deliverable. Finally, a summary of KPIs from all these sources is established and classified in order to guide the further selection of the suitable KPIs for REHOUSE Renovation Packages and demonstration sites. To be in adequacy with the objectives of the REHOUSE project and the European LEVEL(s) framework the summary of KPIs is arranged by 3 criteria:1. Scale. The KPIs are given at the scale of renovation packages, buildings and at the scale of territory/city.2. Macro-objectives (MO) of the LEVEL(s) framework.3. Category. The KPIs are classified by domain related to construction projects. The links between these classifications are illustrated in the report. The buildings’ KPI are mainly based on the KPIs from the LEVEL(s) framework augmented with the results of the MEL inventory by REHOUSE project partners which together with Renovation Packages’ KPIs create a basis for the definition of the REHOUSE project KPIs in the task 3.2. The results of the MEL inventory by project partners allow also to identify some additional KPIs which are not considered by the LEVEL(s) framework. For the purposes of KPIs definition of the REHOUSE project in the Task 3.2 all the KPIs have been classified by the next categories: Building envelope. Here are included indicators related to thermal parameters of building walls and roof. Resource use. This category integrates indicators related to building energy and water consumption, as well as the amount of waste generated. Comfort conditions. It integrates indicators related to thermal, acoustic and visual comfort as well as the IAQ. Economics. It integrates indicators related to the cost dimension of construction process. Social/user’s behaviour. This category includes indicators related to the evaluation of impact of building use on life of users and changes in users’ behaviour inside or outside the building/dwelling they live. Environment and built environment. It integrates indicators related to greenhouse gas emissions of buildings in operational phase, as well as those associated to the outdoor environment of building or construction site. Resources re-use. This category includes indicators related to recycling and reuse of materials, wastes and other goods. Further public reports of the REHOUSE project: Publications – REHOUSE
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,051 | 0,057 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,015 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,009 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,089 | 0,115 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».