A Comparative Analysis of Design Criteria Influencing Building Material Selection Across Different Architectural Contexts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of selecting building materials is a complex process that is affected by many restrictions, criteria and considerations.Often, the process is carried out spontaneously without considering the design criteria and neglects the building's function.Therefore, it is crucial to identify the key criteria impacting material selection.Design criteria vary based on a building's intended purpose and location, leading to distinct considerations.This study identifies five main design criteria: physical, cultural-social, environmental, economic, and technical.Experts in architecture participated in a survey, with Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) used to assign weights to these criteria.The research findings highlight that material select for a building's envelope depend on its function and context.In religious buildings, cultural criteria are vital, regardless of historical or modern contexts.Historical residential buildings prioritize cultural criteria, while modern ones lean toward economic considerations.Commercial buildings have historically been influenced by physical factors but are now more influenced by technical criteria.This study highlights the importance of considering a variety of design criteria when selecting building materials to ensure effective adaptation to the building's use and context.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it