An IDP-BIM Framework for Reshaping Professional Design Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrated design process (IDP) and Building Information Modeling (BIM) have been recognized as two approaches to address the problem of fragmentation in the construction industry. Adopting these processes and tools nonetheless requires drastic changes in design practices. There is a need for generating and formalizing new knowledge practices, and discarding obsolete ones. However, traditional approaches to create and transfer this new knowledge cannot cope with this need. This research builds on social learning theories, such as activity theory, to propose a situated learning environment in which BIM-related technologies are structured in an IDP framework. This learning environment is designed as a laboratory where traditional practices in planning, managing and designing construction projects can be challenged. BIM and simulation models, together with collaboration tools are used as boundary objects to break barriers between professional practices. Design teams, by adapting to this new environment, generate new practice knowledge. This knowledge is captured using ethnographic methods to enhance and consolidate the IDP framework. The proposed approach contributes to accelerating the co-generation of new knowledge practices within the proposed environment.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".