Conceptual design vulnerability assessment of the housing light roofs to strong winds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hurricanes are one of the most significant causes of human and material losses in the Caribbean region. These events have demonstrated their devastating impact on housing and infrastructure. The assessment of the vulnerability of buildings with light roofs, at the initial design stage, is considered to be a fundamental step in the mitigation of these damages and losses. This paper presents the introduction of an indicator-based vulnerability assessment in an effort to mitigate these damages in advance. This indicator facilitates the design team's decision to select the appropriate light roof alternative subject to strong winds at the conceptual stage of the process. The indicators that contribute to the conceptual assessment of vulnerability were identified based on a comprehensive review of the literature and numerical simulations of the risk scenarios using CFD/FEM software’s. The ranking of indicator weights was determined by the Kano method according to experts' opinions. A desktop application has been developed for the assessment of the vulnerability of light roof variants for buildings at the conceptual design stage. The results reported in a case study demonstrate the viability of the desktop application based on the vulnerability indicator to assist decision making in the conceptual design stage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".