Systematic Review of Material Selection for Building Envelopes Based on Multi-Criterion Decision-Making
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
This study conducts a systematic literature review to evaluate existent studies on the use of multi-criterion decision-making (MCDM) methods for selecting building envelope materials and identifies the various criteria and weight distribution techniques employed in this process. The results and discussion section focuses on the environmental impact, cost, technical performance, and social impact criteria, as they were identified as the predominant criteria among the reviewed studies. The results demonstrate that environmental impact and cost criteria consistently carry higher weights in MCDM studies in comparison to the social impact criteria. It is also found that, while numerous MCDM methods have been employed in the building envelope material selection process, the use of a hybrid MCDM approach is found to be the most recommended course. Overall, the findings of this study assist construction specialists in understanding the current practices and limitations in material selection processes for building envelopes and provide insights for future research in this area.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 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