MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197803345 · doi:10.5539/eer.v11n2p31

A Review of Embedding Artificial Intelligence in Internet of Things and Building Information Modelling for Healthcare Facility Maintenance Management

2021· review· en· W3197803345 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mina Sadat Orooje, Mohammad Mehdi Latifi

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy and Environment Research · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMonash University
KeywordsComputer scienceFacility managementProcess (computing)ExploitInternet of ThingsHealth careEngineering managementKnowledge managementData scienceProcess managementSystems engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)World Wide WebComputer securityBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Latest innovations in Internet of Things (IoT) technologies as well as the new paradigms in Artificial Intelligence systems are opening up opportunities to create smart computing infrastructures for the Healthcare Facility Management. However, the current scenario of hospital buildings maintenance management is strongly characterized by slow, redundant, and not integrated processes, which lead to loss of money, resources, and time. On the other hand, lack of data and information in as-built digital models considerably limits the potential of Building Information Modelling in Facility Maintenance Management. Consequently, optimization of data collection process and management is required. In this light, this paper presents a review of embedding AI (Artificial Intelligence) in BIM-IoT integration for the process of healthcare Facility Maintenance Management (FMM) in order to conquer the current challenges. The first challenge in front of integrating IoT– BIM, is the lack of information; the second challenge is BIM’s sematic information that has not been able to display indoor conditions’ elements which should be reconsidered; and the third challenge is the data size which is stored in systems as well as the eligibility of individuals to apply the related data. Additionally, some emerging trends in IoT are reviewed such as the combination of Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence in order to exploit their advantages and complement their limitations, which enable new promising IoT applications.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy and Environment ResearchSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207