MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1529655744 · doi:10.1108/14676370710817183

Institutional motivations and barriers to the construction of green buildings on campus

2007· article· en· W1529655744 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSustainability in Higher Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityGreen buildingProcess (computing)Architectural engineeringFacility managementOriginalityBuilding designBusinessHigher educationEngineering managementPublic relationsEngineeringSociologyMarketingQualitative researchPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To explore the barriers and motivations to the construction of green buildings at the University of Waterloo (UW) by documenting and analysing the UW building process. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted 13 semi‐structured in‐depth interviews with key UW individuals as well as analyzing numerous internal reports in order to document UW's building process. Based on the literature, a set of key ingredients for successful green building projects is developed as a basis from which to evaluate UW's current practices. Findings Based on the four key ingredients needs for successful green building projects at Institutions of Higher Education (IHE), UW was found to have weaknesses in all four areas including: a lack internal leadership amongst stakeholders with decision‐making power, a lack of quantifiable sustainability targets, an operational structure that does not reward building designs with lower energy costs, and lack of communication between professional designers, facilities management and faculty. While UW has implemented many green initiatives on campus, the current financial and organizational structure of the University's current system does lend itself to the creation and implementation of green buildings on campus. Originality/value Most research at IHE document existing green building initiatives and the lessons learned from their design and construction. There has been limited research into the processes by which decisions to proceed with the construction of green buildings are made, particularly within large institutions. As a consequence, the research documents many of the pitfalls, traps, and solutions that are experienced during the construction of green buildings, but have limited knowledge of the reasons why some proposed green buildings never get developed. This research identifies barriers to the construction of green buildings within institutional decision‐making processes and makes specific recommendations for realizing green building construction based on the UW case study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.796

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it