On the use of multi-criteria decision making methods for minimizing environmental emissions in construction projects
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
There are huge amounts of emissions associated with construction industry during its different stages from cradle till building demolition. This study presents a methodology that integrates multi-objective optimization and multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) in order to enable construction decision-makers to select the most sustainable construction alternatives. Four objectives functions are investigated, which are: construction time, lifecycle cost, environmental impact and primary energy in order to construct the Pareto front. A novel hybrid MCDM is designed based on seven multi-criteria decision making techniques to select the best solution among the set of the Pareto optimal solutions. Sensitivity analysis is performed in order to determine the most sensitive attribute and construction stages that influence environmental emissions. The analysis illustrates that WSM, COPRAS and TOPSIS provided the best rankings of the alternatives, primary energy is the most sensitive attribute for different MCDM methods. Moreover, PROMETHEE II is the most robust MCDM method.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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