MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1596625554

국내 친환경 공동주택의 활성화를 위한 개정 건물 성능 평가제도 비교 연구

2010· article· ko· W1596625554 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venue한국생태환경건축학회 논문집 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnergy and Environmental Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApartmentCertificationValuation (finance)Architectural engineeringReal estateUpgradeBusinessBuilding managementEnvironmental economicsEngineeringCivil engineeringFinanceMarketingComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As design tools, building performance certification systems can be applied to provide adequate guidelines on design process to create environment-friendly buildings. Domestic certification systems of residential building took effect by doing supply to designers and contractors from affiliated organization of governments in the early 2000s. As a result, Building Energy Rating System, Apartment Performance Rating System, Green Homes and other means to promote green designs have been operated. International trends of applying certification systems were started in the early 1990s as forms of LEED in USGBC, BREEAM in BRE, GBTool Canada. These systems aim to evaluate building performance in line with the Climatic Change Convention and realize sustainable building design. In 2009, residential buildings accounted for the largest portion of the internal real estate market with 67.9 percent according to the National Statistical Office data. And for 18 years since 1991, apartments among constructed residential buildings have ranked top taking up 77.7% as of 2009. Apartment performance evaluations accordingly are to promote to constitution of improving tenant quality of life, the residential environment and saving energy and resources in the internal building market. The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze valuation bases of each sector in evaluation systems of residential buildings at home and abroad to upgrade current systems through reflecting the characteristics of residential buildings. Implementation of this study basically include comparison of valuation bases and partial analysis on properties of rating systems to suggest requisites for improvement in building performance certification.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.233 · 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