MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052044823 · doi:10.3992/jgb.10.1.150

CONSIDERATION OF THE USE PHASE IN CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS FOR RESIDENTIAL GREEN BUILDING

2015· article· en· W2052044823 on OpenAlexaff
Mario Patenaude, Sylvain Plouffe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Green Building · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationGreen buildingArchitectural engineeringEnergy consumptionPhase (matter)Consumption (sociology)Ecological footprintWater efficiencyEnvironmental economicsBusinessEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningCivil engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental scienceSustainability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The building industry is associated with several environmental impacts. In considering the total building lifecycle, the use phase has a strong influence on the level of impact. According to the literature, the use phase of residential buildings represents up to 92% of energy consumption, constitutes 95% of water consumption (indoor and outdoor), accounts for 45% of the weight of materials used, and produces 50% of the waste (maintenance, repair, and renovation). Green building and certification programs used in North America, such as BOMA-BESt®, LEED®, and Living Building ChallengeTM, aim to reduce the environmental footprint of housing. However, while these certifications provide a useful framework for practices related to buildings and their systems, a documentary analysis shows that they do not adequately take into account the use phase of residential buildings. The purpose of this paper is to show that consideration of the use phase is inconsistent with the impacts associated with it.

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)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Green BuildingSame topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207