MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058382545 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v2n3p127

Value –Based Maintenance Management Model for University Buildings in Malaysia-A Critical Review

2009· article· en· W2058382545 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arazi Idrus, Mohd Faris Khamidi, A Olanrewaju Abdul Lateef

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFacilities and Workplace Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustenanceBusinessProcess (computing)Facility managementProcess managementComputerized maintenance management systemValue (mathematics)Service (business)Risk analysis (engineering)Operations managementComputer sciencePreventive maintenanceMarketingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The essence of building maintenance is to increase the service life of a building by delaying deterioration, decay and failure. Building maintenance must therefore be considered as a strategic process if the value of a building is to be sustained. Building maintenance management is a complex and multi-faceted thought process that involves planning, directing, controlling and organizing maintenance services for the sustenance of the value of a building. It entails making intricate decisions under complex algorithms, uncertainty and risks within organizational resources. The purpose of this paper is to propose an alternative maintenance management model for university buildings in Malaysia. The proposed model reflects current thinking on building maintenance management. A number of studies have investigated the maintenance management of university buildings in Malaysia; however, all the studies have observed maintenance management procedures that are corrective and condition based. Nonetheless, this is contributing to the spate of maintenance backlogs and the lack of value delivery to the stakeholders. Although the research specifically focused on university buildings, many public and private sector organizations face similar maintenance management problems. Therefore this research has broader applications. The outcome of this research is to come up with a prototype maintenance management model that can facilitate university institutions to carry out buildings maintenance management services that meet the expectations and perceptions of the stakeholders.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations31
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicFacilities and Workplace ManagementFrench-language works237,207