Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".