MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106331011 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.150702

Integration of Life Cycle Data in a BIM Object Library to Support Green and Digital Public Procurements

2020· article· en· W3106331011 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ambra Barbini, Giada Malacarne, Katrien Romagnoli, Giovanna A. Massari, Dominik T. Matt

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcurementWorkflowBuilding information modelingSustainabilityLife-cycle assessmentProcess (computing)Environmental impact assessmentDecision support systemSustainable designEnvironmental economicsProcess managementComputer scienceBusinessDatabaseEnvironmental resource managementEngineeringOperations managementProduction (economics)Environmental scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To reduce the environmental and economic impacts of the construction sector it is essential to follow sustainable models in each stage of the design process, including the procurement phase. Construction costs are generally calculated at this stage, overlooking life-cycle impacts. Since 2016, the Italian code of public procurement requests to comply with environmental minimum criteria and introduced the mandatory use of digital methods and tools. Given the opportunity to exchange information through BIM objects, this research explores the possibility to manage environmental and economic data with digital methods and tools in public procurement. This paper presents an evaluation system and a workflow to support the decision makers in considering the life cycle of a construction, optimizing environmental and economic impacts. The evaluation system developed is based on parameters, focused on environmental and economic impacts. Parameters have been collected analyzing and comparing sustainability norms and protocols. Results show that the developed system not only can support a public body during the procurement phase, but also delivers a database for further project phases, such as operation and end of life.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207