Social Value Toolkit for Architecture: Guidance on evaluating the social value impact on people and communities delivered by a project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Social Value Toolkit for Architecture has been developed to make it simple to evaluate and demonstrate the social impact of design on people and communities. Social value outcomes are increasingly being considered necessary benefits in public and private procurement through quality scores of bids and tenders. To provide evidence that meets these key performance targets and metrics, practices need to demonstrate value quantitatively and this toolkit provides a post occupancy evaluation survey and methodology for reporting social value as a financial return on investment. The Social Value Toolkit was developed through a research project led by the University of Reading and included representatives from the RIBA and research leaders in architectural practice. Download the guidance below to hear from some of these researchers on how their practice is building social value into their projects and design processes.
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 | 0.043 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.096 | 0.060 |
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".