Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The B.C. Government and local governments have started different initiatives aimed to \nreduce the environmental impacts of buildings. Currently, the city of Vancouver is developing a \ngreen building strategy (GBS) that will be implemented in several phases and will pursue a \nmandatory regulated green building strategy for most new development in the city. Similarly, \nthe B.C. Government is proposing a B.C. Green Building code for early 2008 which will address, \namong other things, new provisions of green building regulations. It is foreseeable that in the \nnear future the government will require that all new building construction follow certain green \nbuilding guidelines which will result in an increasing demand for green building services. This \nincreased demand will generate an opportunity for companies that can offer expertise in this field, \nas this type of new construction will require additional capacities or expertise that medium and \nsmall developers do not possess at this point in time. \nBigfoot Consulting will offer green consulting services to satisfy the underserved demand \nfor green building expertise. Currently the competition is quite fragmented and recent entrants \nhave not been able to meet current excess demand. Competitors offer either specialized niche \nconsulting or a more comprehensive range of services, and range from well-established \narchitectural firms to new ventures. Bigfoot will provide a comprehensive range of green \nconsulting services targeted to individuals (B2C) and to development teams in the construction \nindustry pursuing green building standards (B2B) in the GVRD. Bigfoot will differentiate itself \nfrom its competition by leveraging UBC’s 11 years of experience in green building and \nsustainable community planning, and will draw on the qualified personnel pool that the \nSustainability Office currently possesses. Importantly, Bigfoot will offer UBC’s own green \nbuilding standard, REAP, for the first time to the off-campus development market. Bigfoot will require a $50,000 budget from UBC in order to cover short-term costs and \nthe addition of one salaried consultant to operate under this business plan. Based on the \neconomic forecast and estimated market share, Bigfoot can expect to certify 18 projects to the \nREAP standard in the first year and generate net income before taxes of $122,025. This \nrepresents a profit margin of 40% in Bigfoot’s first year of operations. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».