A Comparative Analysis of the Complexities of Building Information Model(ling) Guides to Support Standardization
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
The current approach to the development of a building information modelling (BIM) standard or guideline has provisioned for each individual authority in a unique way. There has been no universally standardized format, content or defined concepts employed in document development from one organization or region to the next. Though format and content vary widely according to the specific document scope and context, many published BIM guides around the world define the same, or similar, terms and concepts. The BIM guides project is the first attempt to leverage these existing publications within an open process of peer review and consensus standardization. It is believed that this structured approach to BIM document development will deliver increased efficiency in the creation and implementation of future Guidelines and Standards, contributing to the adoption and standardization of BIM within industry and providing the much needed universal baseline from which the many user-types of BIM can effectively build their knowledge, skills and abilities.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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