Life-Cycle Assessment-Based Environmental Performance Targets for Buildings
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
The role of targets in delivering meaningful performance improvements for designing new buildings and retrofitting existing building stocks is important. A piecemeal approach of incomprehensive assessments around insignificant changes falls short of achieving deep cuts in impacts. Most of the current assessments are not based on well-defined performance targets. The chapter is centered around exploring the utility of the concept of planetary boundaries for setting well-grounded benchmarking systems in guiding the transformation of the built environment that significantly contributes to the overall environmental impact of the economy. It discusses the role of life cycle assessment, environmental product declarations and product category rules, and how these and relevant standards and guides can be used in tandem with tools and processes used in design offices such as building information modeling. It concludes by charting the need for research on taking concepts such as planetary boundaries to building level benchmarking systems that support better design practices.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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