MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2275342288 · doi:10.2495/dne-v10-n2-140-153

Study on the microenvironment evaluation of the architectural layout based on building information modeling: a case study of chongqing, China

2015· article· en· W2275342288 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tao Zhou, Zou Qian

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Design and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
KeywordsChinaArchitectural engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the development of urbanization, China's cities meet the restriction of resource and environment.UNEP releases the report 'Towards a green economy', which mentioned Green City is the direction in city's development.From the perspective of full development of the city, using Building Information Modeling for urban planning and urban management can make city ecological and humane, also breaking the situation that urban planning studies are uncorrelated with the ecological studies.Based on these theories, the paper takes the practice of urban renewal in Chongqing as an example.The two simulated models of different layouts are evaluated and analyzed, and then the comparison of evaluation results such as the index of sunshine, ventilation and energy consumption is obtained.The paper proposes some suggestions on the advancement of planning scheme and exerts practical significance on the relevant index quantification for urban planning and management, which is valuable and practical during the fast urbanization period of China.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and EcodynamicsSame topicUrban Design and Spatial AnalysisFrench-language works237,207