Framing and Evaluating the Best Practices of IFC-Based Automated Rule Checking: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research reviews recent advances in the domain of Automated Rule Checking (ARC) and argues that current systems are predominantly designed to validate models in post-design stages, useful for applications such as e-permitting. However, such a design-check-separated paradigm imposes a burden on designers as they need to iteratively fix the fail-to-pass issues. Accordingly, the study reviews the best-practices of IFC-based ARC systems and proposes a framework for ARC system development, aiming to achieve proactive bottom-up solutions building upon the requirements and resources of end-users. To present and evaluate its capabilities, the framework is implemented in a real-life case study. The case study presents all the necessary steps that should be taken for the development of an ARC solution from rule selection and analysis, to implementation and feedback. It is explained how a rule checking problem can be broken down into separate modules implemented in an iterative approach. Results show that the proposed framework is feasible for successful implementation of ARC systems and highlight that a stable data standard and modeling guideline is needed to achieve proactive ARC solutions. The study also discusses that there are some critical limitations in using IFC which need to be addressed in future studies.
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 | 0.051 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".