MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366139808 · doi:10.46254/eu05.20220513

Exploring the Interrelationship Between the Current and Future Sustainable Building Design Factors: UAE Perspective

2022· article· en· W4366139808 on OpenAlexaff
Rasha Mdkhana, A. I. Al-Shamma’a, Sharfuddin Ahmed Khan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Current (fluid)Computer scienceArchitectural engineeringEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sustainability plays an important role in protecting the surrounding environment from adverse impacts. It becomes a spotlight for researchers and engineers. The continuously developing social, economic, and environmental challenges need an evolution of the currentsustainable buildingdesignfactors with maintaining a direct relationship with the past andfuture. Based on reviewing the literature, the current factors are identified. However, there is a lacking in identifying future factors and exploring the interrelationship between current and future factors. This study identifiesthen validatesfuture factors by using the Delphi technique. Moreover, explores the interrelationship between factors by applying the multi-criteria decision making (MCDM), in particular the interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and cross-impact matrix multiplication applied to classification (MICMAC) methods. Finding the interrelationship will help future engineers in making decisions. A five-level model is generated which includes twelve factors, linking current and future factors. This model suggests that location and transportation factor is the key factor in the decision-making of designing sustainable buildings. Moreover, driving and dependence powers will guide the engineers in concentrating on the key factor. Accordingly, the factors are allocated into dependent and linkage clusters. Building space optimization factor has a high dependency on other factors as it is the only factor appears in the dependent cluster. While most of the factors appear in the linkage cluster which are unstable in the system and just transferring the effect. Future research work can consider other MCDM tools in validating theresults.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207