MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3028704143 · doi:10.3390/su12114393

Self-Organising Floor Plans in Care Homes

2020· article· en· W3028704143 on OpenAlexaff
Silvio Carta, Stephanie St. Loe, Tommaso Turchi, Joel Simon

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic University
FundersUniversity of Hertfordshire
KeywordsFloor planPlan (archaeology)Computer scienceGenetic algorithmOrder (exchange)Energy consumptionSpatial designMeasure (data warehouse)Operations researchSustainable developmentIndustrial engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringBusinessMachine learningEngineering drawingData miningSpace (punctuation)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents and discusses an optimisation approach applied to spatial layouts in care home building design. With this study, we introduce a method for increasing the floor plan efficiency using a self-organising genetic algorithm, thus reducing energy consumption, improving the wellbeing of residents and having an implicit impact on the costs of energy and health care. In order to find an optimal spatial configuration, we elaborated and tested a number of design criteria based on existing literature reviews and interpreted through initial considerations of care home layouts. These are used as objectives in a Genetic Algorithm (GA) to evaluate the best design solution. The self-organised floor plan is then used to run a final simulation to observe how residents could use the optimised spaces and to measure the improved efficiency of the new plans. The paper concludes with the discussion of the results and some considerations for future studies and experiments using emergence behaviour models to improve sustainable development in 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207