A Framework for Comparative Evaluation of the Life Cycle Sustainability of Modular and Conventional Buildings
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
In recent decades, the construction industry has experienced the process of industrialization and off-site construction methods have been used as a substitute for their conventional on-site counterparts. Off-site construction is defined as a process, in which building elements and components are manufactured and preassembled off the construction site, in a factory environment, before their installation on the final project location. Modular construction is one of the main methods of off-site construction that can be applied to diverse types of buildings, ranging from a small residential building to a complicated commercial project. The published technical literature indicates that modular buildings offer numerous benefits that can effectively contribute to the sustainability in construction. However, there is a lack of comparative studies, which comparatively analyzed the life cycle sustainability performance of modular and conventional buildings. This paper proposes a life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), which is one of the multicriteria decision making (MCDM) techniques. This framework evaluates and compares the life cycle sustainability of modular and conventional buildings by addressing all the key sustainability dimensions, i.e., environmental, economic, and social. Different components of the proposed framework and the potential outcomes of its application are presented in this paper.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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