A post occupancy evaluation framework for LEED certified U.S. higher education residence halls
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
Numerous higher education (HE) institutions in the United States have created sustainability agendas, including construction of certified sustainable buildings. More than 200 US HE institutions have at least one Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified building on their campus. In order to assess if sustainable residence buildings are performing as expected, a post occupancy evaluation (POE) framework of indicators was developed and implemented. POE indicators were chosen through a review of sustainability rating systems, literature review, and surveys. The selected indicators address a range of parameters using quantitative and qualitative data collection methods via investigative and diagnostic techniques. The dataset includes temperature and relative humidity measurements, water and energy consumption, feedback from facility manager departments and almost 600 occupants. The findings highlight large variations in terms of energy and water consumption, and poor indoor air quality; moreover, LEED residence halls have also shown to be less sustainable over time. The findings also indicate the LEED rating system may generate skewed savings expectations, as occupant behaviours and feedback are poorly considered.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it