Integrating Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) to Evaluate the Economic Benefits of Designing Aging-In-Place Homes at the Conceptual Stage
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 paper presents a methodology of integrating Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) to evaluate the economic implications of designing aging-in-place (AIP) homes at the conceptual stage. With the rising global aging population, there is a growing demand for housing tailored to elderly needs. This study emphasizes the importance of early design phases, offering a semi-automated model to estimate life cycle costs from design to disposal. The model enables comprehensive economic assessments, highlighting the long-term feasibility of design decisions by considering life cycle costs early in the process. Investing in accessible and universal design features upfront can lead to long-term savings by reducing the need for extensive future retrofits. The model allows for comparisons among different design alternatives, assessing the financial impact of features such as wider doorways, accessible bathrooms, and elevators. This study provides valuable insights for designers and homeowners, supporting efficient decision-making during the early design stages of AIP homes.
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 | 0.003 | 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) | 0.000 | 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