MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

From the Pilot Project to the Mainstream Practice - Learning Explored in Planning and Design of a Low-Energy Quarter

2015· article· en· W224167653 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Economics and Finance · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Regional Development Fund
KeywordsMainstreamQuarter (Canadian coin)Perspective (graphical)Learning designEnergy (signal processing)Pilot programEngineeringPsychologyMedical educationMathematics educationComputer sciencePolitical scienceMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pilot projects are common platforms for developing/testing construction methods or solutions for e.g. low-energy house-building. Whereas studies report on their technical/engineering outcomes, little is known from a learning perspective. In our study of pilot-project learning, the planning for and assessment of learning from a “low-energy quarter” pilot was explored. In step one, the initiators and the local authority participantswere addressed. The findings of the interviews indicatedthe changed understandings during the pilot of e.g. the planning and design criteria for sustainable building. Although stressed at the pilot outset, it seems that the learning among the stakeholders was not so well documented or systematically evaluated and shared so that the mainstream practice could have been informed or changed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.547
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.184 · 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