MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969153914 · doi:10.5539/ass.v4n9p103

Performance Analysis of Government and Public Buildings via Post Occupancy Evaluation

2009· article· en· W1969153914 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Natasha Khalil, Abdul Hadi Nawawi

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFacilities and Workplace Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPost-occupancy evaluationOccupancyGovernment (linguistics)BenchmarkingBusinessSustainabilityArchitectural engineeringGuidelinePublic sectorBenchmark (surveying)Environmental economicsEngineeringMarketingPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The government has an important obligation to ensure that the public buildings and facilities should be well managed to maintain building sustainability. Evaluation after occupancy in buildings is vitally needed to ensure that building performance is sustained. Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) of buildings is of utmost importance in building performance evaluation as it comprises the technique that is used to evaluate whether a building meets the user’s requirement. By using occupants as benchmark in evaluation, the potential of improving the performance of building is enormous. This paper discusses about a research with the broad aim of developing a general guideline for the POE practice specifically for government and public buildings in Malaysia. The entailing objectives are firstly, to review and analyze the government and public building performance, secondly, to determine the occupants’ satisfaction level, and thirdly, to determine the correlation between building performance and occupants’ satisfaction level. The study has revealed that 74% of the aspects of building performance are in high correlation with the occupants’ satisfaction. The study concludes that the proposed guideline of POE is effective, relevant and beneficial to be used by public sector in evaluating the performance of government and public buildings in Malaysia.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations48
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicFacilities and Workplace ManagementFrench-language works237,207