Improving Design Coordination for Building Projects. I: Information Model
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
Detailed design of building projects is a complex multidisciplinary process highly dependent upon effective aggregation of individual designs to produce a coherent set of final design documents. Throughout the detailed design process, changes are frequently introduced and need to be properly managed among the various members of the design team. This paper presents an information model for storing design information, recording design rationale, and managing design changes. The proposed model is built around a central library of generalized building components that can be used to describe a complete building project hierarchy. Each component allows the designer to store desired performance criteria and related design rationale. Each component is also sensitive to its own changes and automatically communicates such changes to affected parties through preset communication paths. The model, as such, provides improved design coordination and control over changes, thus helping to increase the consistency and productivity of the overall design process. Conceptual details of the model are described in this paper, and model implementation into a collaborative design system is presented in a companion paper.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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