MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766126180 · doi:10.3390/ijerph14111292

Assessment of SIP Buildings for Sustainable Development in Rural China Using AHP-Grey Correlation Analysis

2017· article· en· W2766126180 on OpenAlexaff
Libiao Bai, Yi Li, Chunming Shi, Qiang Du

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAnalytic hierarchy processSustainable developmentChinaEnvironmental economicsGrey relational analysisEnergy consumptionBusinessComputer scienceArchitectural engineeringCivil engineeringEngineeringOperations researchMathematicsGeographyStatisticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional rural residential construction has the problems of high energy consumption and severe pollution. In general, with sustainable development in the construction industry, rural residential construction should be aimed towards low energy consumption and low carbon emissions. To help achieve this objective, in this paper, we evaluated four different possible building structures using AHP-Grey Correlation Analysis, which consists of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Grey Correlation Analysis. The four structures included the traditional and currently widely used brick and concrete structure, as well as structure insulated panels (SIPs). Comparing the performances of economic benefit and carbon emission, the conclusion that SIPs have the best overall performance can be obtained, providing a reference to help builders choose the most appropriate building structure in rural 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Citations29
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207