Sustainability assessment model for heritage buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this research is to focus on the evaluation of heritage buildings' sustainability. BIM modeling was necessary for the design of the sustainability assessment model for Heritage Buildings (SAHB). Using ArchiCAD®, energy simulations were performed for two case studies (Murabba Palace, Saudi Arabia, and Grey Nuns Building, Canada), and the developed model was validated through sensitivity analysis. Design/methodology/approach Heritage buildings (HBs) are unique and must be preserved for future generations. This article focuses on a sustainability assessment model and rating scale for heritage buildings in light of the need for their conservation. Regional variations were considered in the model development to identify critical attributes whose corresponding weights were then determined by fuzzy logic. Data was collected via questionnaires completed by Saudi Arabian and Canadian experts, and Fuzzy TOPSIS was also applied to eliminate the uncertainties present when human opinions are involved. Findings Results showed that regional variations were sufficiently addressed through the multi-level weight consideration in the proposed model. Comparing the nine identified factors that affect the sustainability of HBs, energy and indoor environmental quality were of equal weight in both case studies. Originality/value This study will be helpful for the design of a globally applicable sustainability assessment model for HBs. It will also enable decision-makers to prepare maintenance plans for HBs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".