Assessing the performance of sustainable technologies for building projects
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At present, the performance of sustainable technologies in buildings is generally not assessed holistically, but rather from a primarily single issue perspective, e.g., only financially or environmentally. Such an approach is limited in that it ignores the interaction of the technologies within the physical facility itself as expressed through life cycle costs, the impact on the surrounding environment, design objectives of the project and its stakeholders whose value systems may conflict. This work identifies the primary cause-and-effect relationships of selected sustainable building technologies and illustrates elements of a framework for the systematic assessment of their performance from an environmental, social, economic, and technical perspective. Rooftop garden technology is used to demonstrate application of the framework. The primary goal of this work is to improve the understanding and decision-making capabilities of the building industry and government when faced with decisions regarding investment and policy regarding sustainable building technologies. A secondary goal is to identify knowledge gaps in our understanding of sustainable technologies.Key words: risk identification, sustainable technology, knowledge management, infrastructure projects, sustainable buildings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it