MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312180710 · doi:10.1080/15623599.2022.2159628

Decision support system (DSS) for selecting sustainable insulation material using Pareto search and novel fuzzy-modified technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) approach

2022· article· en· W4312180710 on OpenAlexaff
Sungyi Kim, Ahmed Hammad

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Construction Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTOPSISIdeal solutionPreferenceSimilarity (geometry)Pareto principleMathematical optimizationMulti-objective optimizationIdeal (ethics)Order (exchange)Fuzzy logicDecision support systemData miningMathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningEngineeringOperations researchStatisticsEconomicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efforts to improve the sustainability of the building construction sector have tended to focus on reducing operational energy cost, whereas sustainability considerations in the material selection at the design and construction phase have received less attention due to construction budget constraints. The present study proposes a decision support system (DSS) to assist decision-makers in accounting for sustainability in their construction material selections. We demonstrate how the developed DSS can be used to identify the most sustainable insulation materials and thicknesses among commercially available alternatives. The DSS ranks available alternatives by incorporating individual project information, material information, and the decision maker’s preferences. Technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) and Pareto search technique are combined in the methodology. By limiting the alternatives to the ‘Pareto front’ of life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost in a multi-objective optimization setting, we seek to reduce subjectivity in the multi-criterion decision-making process. Moreover, product-specific environmental product declaration is used to calculate the embodied energy for the LCA. The framework recommends commercially available materials and thicknesses accordingly. The proposed method is programmed in Python to establish a user interface for data input and output of results.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Construction ManagementSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207