Canadian Industry Practitioners Perception on LEED Credits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the need for sustainable practices in building projects is globally recognized, some construction stakeholders still demonstrate resistance in adopting sustainable practices. The general perception is that attempting to achieve sustainability will increase the capital cost of construction and can delay the schedule. In recent years, societal pressure and government incentives as well as practitioners knowledge and acknowledgement, have led many construction projects to pursue sustainability credits. In 2002, Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC) adopted the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard as a tool to evaluate the sustainability of construction projects. The main objective of this research is to generate a better understanding of LEED professionals' perception of the impact of achieving LEED credits on projects parameters such as cost, schedule and future value. A survey was conducted to clarify their position towards the impact of each of the 69 points in the early version of LEED-New Construction on project factors. The survey targets factors in its three phases — prior to construction, during construction and post construction. The results can assist in improving the evaluating systems and developing sustainability design tools in the future.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".