MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111949393 · doi:10.14288/1.0394833

Whole building life cycle assessment for residential buildings : a design improvement framework

2020· article· en· W3111949393 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLife Cycle Costing Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchitectural engineeringBuilding designEnvironmental scienceEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The environmental impacts of building stock have received significant attention in recent years, as buildings consume more than 40% of the world’s energy and release one third of total greenhouse gas emissions. In the past, most efforts were focused on mitigating environmental impacts during the operational stage of buildings, while the environmental performance of the other life cycle stages received limited attention. In an attempt to address this limitation, whole-building life cycle assessment (WBLCA) has become a trend in order to ensure the best environmental performance of a building in holistic terms. However, research studies usually face challenges to systematically evaluating WBLCA performance at the design stage due to the complexity of assessments at the building level. On the other hand, there are very few studies that consider environmental and economic impacts simultaneously at the building level. Furthermore, the current WBLCA studies usually end after the LCA results are calculated and interpreted. There is no study that provides a building design improvement method based on the final LCA results. The main goal of this research is to develop a design improvement framework based on the proposed WBLCA method to evaluate and improve the environmental and economic performance at the building level. The Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) methods were adopted at the building level to ensure the WBLCA is comprehensive and reliable. Building Information Modelling (BIM) and life cycle cost (LCC) were used to ensure the building assemblies are accurate, and to provide dynamic material updates with associated costs for the design improvement framework. The fuzzy-based multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) approach was used to compare the comprehensive building-level LCA results, and select the most suitable building design by considering all the environmental and economic impacts at different life cycle stages. The deliverables of this research will aid in decision making for sustainable urban planning and environmental performances in the building sector. The developed design improvement framework will assist building designers in efficiently improving the WBLCA performance by highlighting the most critical life cycle stages and building assemblies while considering the economic performance. The BIM-based WBLCA approach will contribute to the development of a digital platform that can also support designers through dynamic WBLCA results in the design revision stages.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0070.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.259 · 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