MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1938740575 · doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.450

A Building Information Management (BIM) Framework and Supporting Case Study for Existing Building Operations, Maintenance and Sustainability

2015· article· en· W1938740575 on OpenAlexaff
J.J. McArthur

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuilding information modelingFacility managementDocumentationSystems engineeringInformation modelProcess (computing)Construction engineeringProcess managementBuilding designKey (lock)Building managementSustainabilityComputer scienceEngineeringEngineering managementRisk analysis (engineering)Scheduling (production processes)Architectural engineeringSoftware engineeringOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building Information Management (BIM) models are transforming how buildings are designed and constructed, and can facilitate multi-disciplinary coordination, and integrate 3D design, analysis, cost estimating, and construction scheduling. By extending the model into the post-occupancy period, BIM models can be used to support Facilities Management and Building Operations, and offer a consolidated interface for information regarding all aspects of building operational performance. Four key challenges must be overcome to develop BIM models suitable for Sustainable Operations management: (1) identification of critical information required to inform Operational decisions, (3) the high level of effort to create new or modify existing BIM models for the building(s), (2) the management of information transfer between real-time operations and monitoring systems and the BIM model, and (4) the handling of uncertainty based on incomplete building documentation. This paper describes the process used to addresses and overcome each of these challenges. The BIM framework and its refinement are presented along with evaluative data from a case study where a model was developed using this framework for a complex university building. The results of this study demonstrate how these BIM models can be developed for the most challenging existing building scenarios and effectively used to improve building management and performance.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations185
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia EngineeringSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207