Building retro-commissioning standard and policy: status quo and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to review standards on or related to retro-commissioning (RCx) and policy measures that are applicable for fostering wider adoption of RCx in existing buildings. In addition to engendering broader polemic debate to address the respective gap in the prevailing body of green building knowledge, the research outcome signposts future directions of works required for developing the needed standard and policy. Design/methodology/approach Following an integrative review approach, RCx-related literature, statutes, publications of public and professional organizations and standards published by institutions including the International Organization for Standardization and other peer organizations in the USA, the UK, Canada and Germany were reviewed. Findings Cities such as Hong Kong and New York in the world’s two largest economies (China and the USA) have been proactive in the pursuit of energy-efficient buildings. Various US cities have imposed statutory requirements on RCx. The need for an international standard on RCx and a bespoke policy for driving the uptake of RCx was also identified. Research limitations/implications Drawn from the research includes the need for further policy research studies to direct how an appropriate policy could be established to engender wider RCx adoption internationally. Practical implications Practical implications center on the identified need to develop a specific standard of RCx works. Making such a standard available to facilities management practitioners is pivotal to realizing the goal of green buildings. Originality/value This study provides new insights, especially the future directions in developing bespoke RCx standards and policy for greening the existing buildings.
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 | 0.090 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".