MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4372311861 · doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106780

BIM and LCA integration methodologies: A critical analysis and proposed guidelines

2023· article· en· W4372311861 on OpenAlexaff
Guilherme Cunha Guignone, Jo�ão Luiz Calmon, Darli Rodrigues Vieira, Alencar Bravo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Building Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Espírito Santo
KeywordsBuilding information modelingStandardizationContext (archaeology)Best practiceLife-cycle assessmentProcess (computing)Systematic reviewConstruction industryEnvironmental impact assessmentProcess managementComputer scienceEngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Management scienceConstruction engineeringProduction (economics)BusinessOperations managementMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.067
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0670.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0160.009
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0150.014
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0040.005
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations43
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Building EngineeringSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207