MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361011258 · doi:10.3389/fbuil.2023.1058782

Cost-effectiveness and affordability evaluation of a residential prototype built with compressed earth bricks, hybrid roofs and palm midribs

2023· article· en· W4361011258 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nermine Abdel Gelil Mohamed, Islam Abo Eldardaa Mahmoud

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Built Environment · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineeringContext (archaeology)BrickQuarter (Canadian coin)Civil engineeringRoofArchitectural engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a response to rising housing prices and the high cost of materials in the building and construction industry, a rural prototype house (the Ecofordable House) was built with alternative technologies. The house is located in the western desert zone of Giza, Egypt, and features enhanced vernacular technologies with local materials. Interlocking compressed stabilized earth brick walls, partially reinforced, jack arch and funicular shell roofs, and date palm midribs were employed in an attempt to reduce the usage of steel, fired bricks, cement, and imported wood. The present research evaluates the house’s construction cost-effectiveness and affordability through detailed real-world data and comparisons of material quantities, labor, and costs with those of conventional methods. The “price-to-income ratio” is used as an indicator of affordability. According to the findings, walls cut costs by half, roofs by a quarter, and midribs by two-thirds; the alternatives combined saved 45%, and the house saved a quarter of the cost after adding common expenses. Moreover, less than one-third of steel, fired bricks, and cement were utilized. In the Egyptian context of government-built houses, the prototype would be affordable for most Egyptian income brackets while the conventional house was expensive for the lowest three. The findings provide empirical support for the economic advantages of enhanced vernacular technologies as alternatives and address residential affordability in similar contexts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Built EnvironmentSame topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207