MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402035631 · doi:10.32920/26882476

Experiments to Determine the Most Effective Way to Map BIM Information Into Athena Software for Embodied Carbon Calculations

2024· preprint· en· W4402035631 on OpenAlexaff
Hakan Gules

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbodied cognitionSoftwareCarbon fibersComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are in a climate emergency, and urgently need to reduce carbon emissions. Buildings are currently responsible for 39% of these emissions globally and it is critical that these be mitigated to restrict the impact of global warming. Embodied carbon refers to the greenhouse gas emissions arising from the manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance, and disposal of building materials and is a priority for reductions in the immediate term. This research calculates embodied carbon through Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings software using two methods. The first creates quantity takeoff for the building assemblies by using Revit software and imports them as modified Excel Bill of Materials (BOM) into the Athena software. The second creates building assemblies in Athena software using BIM assembly types and quantity takeoffs. The Smart Campus Integration and Testing Hub (SCITHub) project was used as a case study. It was observed that Revit software does not have the ability to create building assemblies in extensive details as the Athena software has. Revit software can be further developed to produce detailed assemblies as per the Athena software properties. Besides, the Athena software can also be developed to contribute to add further details into the Revit imported BOMs.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207