Development of a sustainability rating tool for heritage buildings: future implications
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
Purpose Heritage buildings are significant for their historical and architectural value. Due to the lack of rating systems designed specifically for heritage buildings, it is essential to develop and validate a heritage building assessment tool that considers its specific characteristics. The purpose of this study is to provide an extensive review of research on Sustainability of Heritage Buildings (SHBs). Design/methodology/approach This review highlights methodologies applied in SHBs research and analyzes major global rating systems in order to identify their deficiencies for SHBs assessment. A systematic review was employed and articles from the top 10 high impact factor journals were studied. Twelve major global rating systems and their assessment criteria were identified. Findings Significant variability was observed among the assessment tools since each tool assesses several criteria, factors and indicators that fit its local context. Part of this variability can also be seen in the rating scales, threshold values and accreditation titles. As a result, the final sustainability ranking for a given building cannot be compared among the 12 rating systems. Most importantly, these systems fail to analyze some factors such as energy that are considered important with respect to heritage building assessment. Originality/value Since no specific rating system could be identified in this review as the most appropriate for heritage buildings, a new sustainability assessment tool that is specific to heritage buildings should be developed. Such a tool will enable facility managers to evaluate and improve the sustainability of their heritage buildings while preserving them.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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