Sustainable Refurbishments, School Buildings: A Guide for Designers and Planners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION 0.1. School refurbishment: a challenge, locally and for Europe 0.2. School buildings: buildings with special characteristics 0.3. Refurbishment of school buildings, two major priorities 0.4. Sustainable refurbishment of schools: definition and priorities 0.4.1 The five major principles of the Rio Declaration 0.4.2. Definition of sustainable design of refurbishment project 0.4.3. Sustainable refurbishment priorities 0.5. Energy regulation and environmental certifications 0.5.1. European regulation on energy efficiency 0.5.2. Environmental certifications 0.6. Conducting a successful school refurbishment project 0.6.1. Analysis of the situation, goals to be achieved 0.6.2. Settings goals and defining options 0.6.3. Analysis of constraints and actions to overcome them 0.6.4. Works schedulings 0.6.5. Participation of players in the school: teachers ans pupils 0.6.6. The economic aspect Picture:
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".