MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2243253930

Creation of an Evolutive Conceptual Know-how Framework for Integrative Building Design

2011· article· en· W2243253930 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ivanka Iordanova, Chiocchio François Forgues Daniel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultidisciplinary approachBuilding information modelingProcess managementKnowledge managementProductivityProcess (computing)Conceptual frameworkBuilding designSustainable designComputer scienceEngineeringEngineering managementArchitectural engineeringSustainabilityOperations managementSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low productivity of the building sector today is attributed to the fragmentation of tasks, disciplines and responsibilities, as well as to the resistance to adopt integrative work processes and digital means. The increased complexity of architectural projects and the aroused social consciousness for sustainable environment calls for integrative design collaboration. Thus, there is need for a Conceptual Framework combining work processes, technological means and policy aspects. According to the literature, integrative multidisciplinary design is a strategy resulting in high performance buildings nurturing sustainable way of living (Reed et al. 2009, Krygiel & Nies 2008). Responding to the increased technological complexity of our built environment, as well as to the objective of meeting multiple criteria of quality, both necessitating multidisciplinary collaboration during design, Building Information Modeling (BIM) is seen as a powerful means for fostering quality, augmenting productivity and decreasing loss in construction. Based on recent research, we can propose that a sustainable building can be designed through an integrative design process (IDP) which is best supported by BIM. However, our ongoing research program and consultations with advanced practitioners underscore a number of limitations. For example, a large portion of the interviewed professionals and construction stakeholders do not necessarily see a link between sustainable building, integrative design process and BIM, while in our opinion, their joint use augments the power of each of these approaches taken separately. Thus, there is an urgent necessity for the definition of an IDP-BIM framework, which could guide the building industry to sustainable results and better productivity. This paper defines such a framework, whose theoretical background lays on studies in social learning (activity theory and situated action theories). These theories suggest that learning and knowledge generation occurs mainly within a social process defined as an activity. This corresponds to the context in which the IDP-BIM framework will be used, its final objective being the transformation of building design practices. The proposed IDP-BIM framework is based on previous research and developments. Thus, firstly, IDP process was well formalized in the Roadmap for the Integrated Design Process (Reed et al.) which is widely used as a guideline for collaborative integrative design by innovating practices in USA and Canada. Secondly, the National Building Information Modeling Standard (NBIMS) of the USA is putting an enormous effort in creating a BIM standard, Succar (2008) recently proposed a conceptual framework for BIM, but BIM ontology is still under development (Gursel et al 2009). Thirdly, an iterative design process bound to gating reviews (inspired from software development processes) was found to be successful in the context of multidisciplinary design studios (reported in our previous papers). The feedback from this study allowed for modifications and adjustments included in the present proposal. The gating process assures the good quality of the project and its compliance to the client's requirements. The challenge of this research is to map the above mentioned approaches, processes and technologies into the design process, thus creating an integrated framework supporting and nurturing sustainable design. The IDP-BIM framework can be represented by a multidimensional matrix linked to a semantic network knowledge database: - the axes of the matrix being the project timeline, the design process actors and building stakeholders (architect, engineers, client, contractor, environmental biologist, etc.), or different aspects of building performance (environmental, functional, social, interior environment quality, cost, etc.), and - the knowledge database providing multiple layers of semantic support in terms of process, domain knowledge, technology and workflow at a given moment of the project and for a given actor or building aspect. The IDP-BIM framework is created as an evolutive digital environment for know-how and will have an established protocol for regular updates. The paper will firstly present the state of the art in IDP and BIM. Secondly, it will expose the methodology used for the definition of the Framework, followed by a description of its structure, contents and digital implementation. Then, some scenarios for the use of the Framework will be shown as validation.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.016
Scholarly communication0.0120.015
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207