MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200410565 · doi:10.1108/ecam-02-2021-0133

Creating space and time for innovation - a methodology for building adaptation design appraisal using physics-based simulation tools and interactive multi-objective optimization

2021· article· en· W4200410565 on OpenAlexaff
Sheida Shahi, Philip Beesley, Carl T. Haas

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Construction & Architectural Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)Building designSystems engineeringComputer scienceDecision support systemManagement scienceEngineeringArchitectural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose It is crucial to consider the multitude of possible building adaptation design strategies for improving the existing conditions of building stock as an alternative to demolition. Design/methodology/approach Integration of physics-based simulation tools and decision-making tools such as Multi-Attribute Utility (MAU) and Interactive Multi-objective Optimization (IMO) in the design process enable optimized design decision-making for high-performing buildings. A methodology is presented for improving building adaptation design decision making, specifically in the early-stage design feasibility analysis. Ten residential building adaptation strategies are selected and applied to one primary building system for eight performance metrics using physics-based simulation tools. These measures include energy use, thermal comfort, daylighting, natural ventilation, systems performance, life cycle, cost-benefit and constructability. The results are processed using MAU and IMO analysis and are validated through sensitivity analysis by testing one design strategy on three building systems. Findings Quantifiable comparison of building adaptation strategies based on multiple metrics derived from physics-based simulations can assist in the evaluation of overall environmental performance and economic feasibility for building adaptation projects. Research limitations/implications The current methodology presented is limited to the analysis of one decision-maker at a time. It can be improved to include multiple decision-makers and capture varying perspectives to reflect common practices in the industry. Practical implications The methodology presented supports affordable generation and analysis of a large number of design options for early-stage design optimization. Originality/value Given the practical implications, more space and time is created for exploration and innovation, resulting in potential for improved benefits.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering Construction & Architectural ManagementSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207