Innovation in Green Building Sector for Sustainable Future
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advancements in green building technologies (GBTs) have grown substantially, as an outcome of the environmental, economic and societal benefits. It has the potential to move toward sustainable development, specifically related to climate change. In GBTs, the main objective is to use energy, water and other resources in a balanced way, without using them extensively. This will improve the environmental conditions. Green buildings (GBs) are beneficial when it comes to energy consumption and emissions; low maintenance and operation costs; boosting health and productivity; etc. There is a lack of a critical review of the past or present research work in the area of the Green Building Technology (GBT) sector to identify the future roadmap for sustainable green building technologies. A critical review, with the help of proper research methodology, was identified. The scope of this study is to analyze the existing work on different issues, and find different key issues in green building research, which has minimal use of natural resources, is cost-effective and is designed and constructed for a longer duration, considering future prospects. This paper examines the state of green building construction today and makes recommendations for further study and development which will be necessary for a sustainable future. In order to encourage research, this study also identified a few possible future research directions in sustainable development.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it