Assessing the performance of sustainable technologies: a framework and its application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recently developed framework to provide a logical structure for the a priori assessment of a particular technology with regard to sustainability concepts, performance, and relevancy to a project's construction process and operation is introduced. The framework is designed to assist project stakeholders and policy-makers in systematically identifying and evaluating the implications and relative merits of a range of alternative sustainable technologies. Building professionals were consulted throughout the development of the framework: to test the completeness of the framework; to capture the value systems of various industry participants in order to reflect them in the framework; and to gather information on the advantages and disadvantages of the green roof technology. The framework is applied to the example of the green roof technology, and the order-of-magnitude estimates are developed for performance measures identified as important from the perspective of industry professionals. The technology is evaluated for different configurations of the same building type to demonstrate the effect of building context on performance. The framework can be used to assist in the assessment of the positive and negative implications of a particular technology with respect to value systems and context, and, therefore, may be used to explain market behaviour, assist policy-makers in developing meaningful regulations and incentives, and provide feedback regarding a new technology in an objective manner. L'auteur présente un cadre qui a été récemment développé pour offrir une structure logique destinée à l'évaluation a priori d'une technologie particulière en ce qui concerne les concepts de durabilité, les performances et la pertinence eu égard au processus de construction et à l'exploitation d'un projet. Ce cadre est conçu pour aider les acteurs d'un projet et les décideurs à identifier et évaluer de manière systématique les implications et les avantages relatifs d'une panoplie de technologies durables alternatives. Durant toute la période de développement du cadre, on a consulté des professionnels de la construction; l'objectif était de tester l'aspect complet du cadre, de capturer les systèmes de valeur des divers participants industriels pour qu'ils soient présents dans le cadre et de collecter des informations sur les avantages et les inconvénients de la technologie des terrasses végétalisées. Ce cadre s'applique à la technologie des terrasses végétalisées et les estimations de l'ordre de grandeur sont calculées pour des mesures de performances importantes aux yeux des professionnels de cette industrie. Cette technologie est évaluée pour différentes configurations d'un même type de bâtiment afin de démontrer les effets du contexte du bâtiment sur les performances. Le cadre peut servir à aider à évaluer les implications positives et négatives d'une technologie donnée par rapport aux systèmes de valeur et au contexte et peut donc être utilisé pour expliquer le comportement du marché, pour aider les décideurs à formuler des règlementations et des incitations significatives et pour fournir de manière objective un retour d'information sur une nouvelles technologie. Mots clés: terrasses végétalisées, mesures de performances, gestion des risques, implication des intervenants, développement durable, technologie durable évaluation de la technologie
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 | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".