MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793852526 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2017-0346

Maximizing sustainability of existing buildings within limited upgrade budgets

2018· article· en· W2793852526 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Moatassem Abdallah, Boateng Akyeampong, Khaled El‐Rayes

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUpgradeCertificationSustainabilityGreen buildingEnvironmental economicsArchitectural engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing buildings, especially aging ones, are currently in urgent need of upgrading to improve their performance and potentially achieve green certification. Building owners often need to identify and implement building upgrades that maximize the sustainability of their buildings as well as achieve green certification programs such as the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). This paper presents the development of an optimization model that maximizes the number of earned LEED points for existing buildings within a specified upgrade budget. A case study of an existing building is used to demonstrate the use of the optimization model and illustrate its capabilities. This research presents new methodology for optimizing the selection of building upgrades to maximize the sustainability of existing buildings and achieve green certification within limited budgets. The present model is expected to support decision-makers, building owners and operators, building managers, and contractors to optimize the use of their upgrade budgets and maximize sustainability of their buildings.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207