Avaliação de edifícios no Brasil: da avaliação ambiental para avaliação de sustentabilidade
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
Governmental agencies, research institutions and private sector worldwide have largely encouraged the development of research concerned with the reduction of the environmental impacts of buildings. The concept of life cycle analysis has supported the development of methodologies for environmental assessment of buildings that emerged in the 90’s as part of the strategies for the attainment of local environmental targets set at the ECO’92. Each European country, as well as the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan and Hong Kong, has its own assessment system. All of them deal exclusively with the environmental dimension of building sustainability. This paper presents and briefly compares the main initiatives on environmental assessment and rating systems, emphasizing the inadequacy of simply importing existing methods based on their success in countries with latitudes, social, economic and environmental conditions far different from those in Brazil. Finally, it discusses the expectations regarding the participation of Brazil in the Green Building Challenge, as well as the strategies to develop research in this field in this country.
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) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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