MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1541114619

¿Sostenible? Crónica de un encuentro

2010· article· es· W1541114619 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Iñaki Ábalos

Bibliographic record

VenuePOLI-RED (Revistas Digitales Politécnicas) (La Universidad Politécnica de Madrid) · 2010
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sustainability is not only a technical problem, but also a political, economic and cultural one. The Canadian Center for Architecture has gathered experts in territorial energy management from around the world in order to have a closed-doors meeting. It is necessary to change the perception that ordinary citizens have, as Mostafavi pointed out, implying a political task which is beyond political practice. Each inhabitant today takes up double the amount of square meters to be heated, cooled, kept at constant temperature, or constructed, than 20 years ago. Some of these experts tried to show that this was a technical problem, setting maximum consumption quotas per person which would be sufficient to have sustainable development. In Switzerland, this gesture implies improving insulation, improving the form factor, and improving the sealing in joinery and thermal bridges. However, this does not stop being a local problem if we compare it to warmer climates in terms of calories and frigories, where we find 40% of air conditioning appliances. Wolker M. Melter states that there are two aesthetical models established within the general public and within professionals: On one hand, the glass bubble and the glass box, with technical knowledge providing ways to manage climate that allow for environments with a complete autonomy; and on the other hand a return to the thick, multi-layer wall; managing the façade within bioclimatic conditions and making a return to a defensive strategy, using materials and resources with a certain degree of lightness and optimism. Recognizing reality along with its limits and contradictions is the first step towards doing something in any direction, maybe with less faith, but certainly making more sense.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.013

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePOLI-RED (Revistas Digitales Politécnicas) (La Universidad Politécnica de Madrid)Same topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207