MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909636109 · doi:10.17681/hsp.394880

Green Hospital Certification Systems

2019· article· en· W2909636109 on OpenAlexaff
Yasin ÇİLHOROZ, Oğuz Işık

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Health Science and Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutions123 Certification (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hospitals are structures where the use of energy and resources that affect both the environment and human health are intense. In particular, the health sector accounts for about 25% of the total carbon emissions of the community by itself and produces large quantities of toxic, harmful substances and contaminated water. Thinking of bringing hospitals out of this situation and making them more beneficial to the environment and human health have provided the emergence of the green hospital concept. In other words, the green hospital has referred to hospitals that use less energy, produce less waste, use more recyclable materials and become healthier organisations on this count. As green hospitals become widespread throughout the world, knowing how hospitals meet the requirements for green hospital has led to the emergence of green hospital certification systems. These certification systems assess hospitals in various areas and score points and certify to hospitals at different levels according to their scores. Hospitals having these certifications gain better patient outcomes, patient / employee safety and satisfaction, cost savings and productivity increase. In this respect, this study will focus on BREEAM for Healthcare, LEED for Healthcare, and Australian Green Star certification systems that are the most commonly used green hospital certification systems worldwide.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.008

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Health Science and ResearchSame topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207