MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998878620 · doi:10.1061/9780784482223.003

Medical Office Building Structural Design Considerations

2019· article· en· W2998878620 on OpenAlexaff
Jim Foreman

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2019 · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFacilities and Workplace Management
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Health careMedical equipmentComputer scienceEngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Systems engineeringArchitectural engineeringBusinessMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the population of the United States both grows and ages, the demand for healthcare facilities has grown steadily. Within the healthcare industry, new construction has been trending towards outpatient facilities, like medical office buildings (MOBs) and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). In this paper, the special structural engineering considerations common to MOB design are discussed. With healthcare buildings, flexibility of future use is an important consideration. MOBs, in particular, are often delivered in two phases. The first phase delivers a core and shell package, and the second addresses tenant improvements (finishes). Strategies for success with this delivery method will be discussed. Additionally, code minimum design loads are often insufficient for heavy imaging equipment. X-rays, CTs, and MRIs can have special requirements for vibration response, structure levelness, and magnetic interference. Final designs require an understanding of the manufacturer’s equipment specifications and specific building criteria. However, those specifications are not always available to the design team during the core and shell design. For that reason, this paper provides appropriate design assumptions and highlights best engineering practices for successful MOB design.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.005

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructures Congress 2019Same topicFacilities and Workplace ManagementFrench-language works237,207