A Framework for Building Design Management in an Imperfect BIM Environment
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
Building design process is a wide spectrum activity, regarding its complexity. It begins by simple compartments structures till large multistory administrative buildings, involving various specialties. Complex design management, where a multidisciplinary team or teams are involved in the design process; requires high level of collaboration to reach the optimized client goals economically and on time. BIM provides a wide range support for such an activity, where the most critical criterion in design management is ensuring the appropriate flow of information between design partners. Each participant in the design process should receive relevant data or information in a complete form and on time. And consequently design participant should send and share their design outputs with relevant personnel. The perfect BIM environment requires that all participants within the design process are using BIM supporting software, and vice versa. Markets where BIM application is still in the growing phase some of the design participants adopt BIM while others don’t. The main target of this paper is to propose a collaborative scheme to ensure information flow between design participants, using COBIE forms and XBIM toolkit; in the case where some of the participants in design process are not using BIM supporting software.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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