Benchmarking of Water, Energy, and Carbon Flows in Academic Buildings: A Fuzzy Clustering Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, higher educational institutions (HEIs) are responsible for a significant portion of energy consumption and anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Improving the environmental performance of HEIs is an important step to achieve nationwide impact reduction. Academic buildings are among the largest infrastructure units in HEIs. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the environmental performance of academic buildings during their operations. Identifying critical academic buildings posing high impacts calls for methodologies that can holistically assess the environmental performance of buildings with respect to water and energy consumption, and GHG emission. This study proposes a fuzzy clustering approach to classify academic buildings in an HEI and benchmark their environmental performance in terms of water, energy, and carbon flows. To account for the fuzzy uncertainties in partitioning, the fuzzy c-means algorithm is employed to classify the buildings based on water, energy, and carbon flow indicators. The application of the developed methodology is demonstrated by a case study of 71 academic buildings in the University of British Columbia, Canada. The assessed buildings are grouped into three clusters representing different levels of performances with different degrees of membership. The environmental performance of each cluster is then benchmarked. Based on the results, the environmental performances of academic buildings are holistically determined, and the building clusters associated with low environmental performances are identified for potential improvements. The subsequent benchmark will allow HEIs to compare the impacts of academic building operations and set realistic targets for impact reduction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".