MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1922660410 · doi:10.1139/l2012-070

Construction of an evaluation system for selecting an appropriate waterproofing method for the roof of a building

2012· article· en· W1922660410 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Choi Sung-Min, Sang-Keun Oh, Chee-Ho Seo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicValue Engineering and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaterproofingRoofReliability engineeringComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringConstruction engineeringEvaluation methodsOperations researchCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the discussion focus on the analysis of evaluation systems for selecting an appropriate waterproofing method, which involves a series of decision-making processes for providing unbiased, methodical, and suitable grounds to facilitate the final decision of the house owner. Thus, the research can potentially develop a decomposable model for validation and a deployable application model for the construction and performance-based design of materials. This paper has determined the performance evaluation criteria of 28 items and the evaluation index that is derived from the application of the value engineering procedure through the analysis for selecting the appropriate waterproofing method, and made a cost evaluation model of the risk based weighted life cycle cost so that life cycle cost evaluation can be performed in consideration of the risk.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicValue Engineering and ManagementFrench-language works237,207