Bibliographic record
Abstract
Green building strategies, performance goals, and associated assessment methods currently emphasize the ways and extent that buildings should mitigate global and local resource depletion and environmental degradation. By contrast, the emerging notion of ‘regenerative’ design and development emphasizes a co-evolutionary, partnered relationship between humans and the natural environment, rather than a managerial one that builds, rather than diminishes, social and natural capitals. Three ideas are addressed. First, understanding the relationship between ‘green’, ‘sustainable’, and ‘regenerative’ design and associated assessment frameworks, giving emphasis to how they represent and engage natural systems and processes. Second, characterizing the type of discussions that these three approaches generate amongst the design team and between the design team and its clients in terms of strengthening an understanding of natural systems. Finally, the inherent potential of green, sustainability and regenerative design approaches to create the necessary and timely changes in performance improvements. One of the most significant differences – and central to this discussion – lies in the ways that uncertainty of the long-term outcomes associated with different design decisions are acknowledged and accommodated in design. Les stratégies de construction verte, les objectifs de performance et les méthodes d'évaluation qui s'y rapportent mettent actuellement l'accent sur les moyens devant permettre aux constructions d'atténuer l'épuisement des ressources et la dégradation de l'environnement au niveau mondial et local et sur l'ampleur de cette atténuation. A l'inverse, la notion émergente de conception « régénérative » et de développement « régénératif » insiste sur une relation coévolutionnaire, partenariale, entre les hommes et le milieu naturel, plutôt que sur une relation de gestion qui renforce, plus qu'elle ne réduit, les capitaux social et naturel. Trois idées sont abordées. Tout d'abord, la compréhension des relations entre une conception « verte », « durable » et « régénérative » et les cadres d'évaluation associés, en mettant l'accent sur la manière dont ils représentent et mobilisent les systèmes et les processus naturels. Deuxièmement, la caractérisation du type de discussions que ces trois approches suscitent au sein de l'équipe chargée de la conception et entre l'équipe chargée de la conception et ses clients en termes de renforcement d'une compréhension des systèmes naturels. Enfin, les possibilités inhérentes aux approches de conception verte, durable et régénérative de création en temps opportun des modifications nécessaires à l'amélioration des performances. L'une des différences les plus importantes – et un élément central de cette discussion – réside dans les modalités de reconnaissance et de prise en compte dans la conception des incertitudes quant aux résultats à long terme associés aux différentes décisions de conception. Mots clés: évaluation constructions conception verte conception réductrice conception régénérative durabilité pensée systémique
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 | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".