Framework for Assessing the Sustainability of Innovative Building Technology
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 construction industry faces the dual challenge of providing affordable housing while addressing the pressing issue of climate change. In South Africa, many residents are forced to live in informal settlements due to a lack of affordable housing. This study aims to develop a sustainability assessment framework that evaluates the interconnectedness of affordability, social sustainability and environmental impact. The framework emphasizes the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It incorporates energy consumption and socio-economic impact criteria aligning with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The findings suggest that while sustainable building practices may incur higher initial costs, they offer long-term benefits, including reduced energy consumption and carbon emissions. The proposed framework will serve as a tool for evaluating the sustainability of innovative building technologies, contributing to the discourse on sustainable construction practices. The study recommends an enhanced stakeholder engagement and a regulatory landscape conducive to adopting IBTs. Further empirical research is recommended to refine the framework and broaden its applicability across different contexts.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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