Evaluating Institutional Green Building Policies: A Mixed-Methods Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sustainable or green building practices have been adopted recently by many higher education institutions for their new campus buildings and major renovations. To date, no formal study has been conducted to determine if policy is essential for sustainable building practices and the implementation of LEED® for these institutional green buildings in North America. A mixed-methods approach consisting of a quantitative survey and qualitative interviews was undertaken with senior facility professionals at higher education institutions in North America. The survey evaluated the institution's use of a policy, guideline, standard, law or goal related to sustainable building practices and the interview identified specific practices as well as issues such as leadership, policy compliance and barriers to adopting sustainable building policies. This paper provides a framework for an institutional sustainable building policy that is suitable to use as a template for senior facility professionals and their specific policy development. This work contributes to a foundation for future research related to sustainable/green building policy development and its application to the higher education sector.
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 | 0.112 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".