MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559586841 · doi:10.3992/jgb.11.3.162.1

WATER CONSERVATION: OBSERVATIONS FROM A HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITY MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE

2016· article· en· W2559586841 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anthony Cupido, Laura J. Steinberg, Brian W. Baetz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Green Building · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMohawk College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessWater conservationPerspective (graphical)Facility managementInstitutionHigher educationAcademic institutionEnvironmental resource managementBest practiceEnvironmental planningPublic relationsEngineeringMarketingPolitical scienceWater resourcesEnvironmental scienceManagementEconomic growthEcologyComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Sustainable or green building practices have been adopted by most higher education institutions for their new campus buildings, major renovations and daily operations. This paper provides a synthesis of opinions and existing practices related to water conservation in institutional green buildings of member institutions of APPA (formerly the Association of Physical Plant Administrators). A specific focus regarding waterless urinals and their operation was attempted. A web-based survey and follow-up one-to-one interviews were utilized to extract information and data from these industry professionals. The survey evaluated the institution's use of policy related to sustainable building practices and focused on their approaches to water conservation. Regional preferences are provided and barriers to some water conservation practices and approaches have been identified. Operational challenges are evident, particularly as they relate to waterless urinals. It is clear that higher education institutions are engaging in water conservation practices across Canada and the United States. This work contributes to a foundation for future research and analysis related to best-management practices for water conservation in the higher education sector.

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)0.004
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Green BuildingSame topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207