MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413863209 · doi:10.35490/ec3.2025.234

Knowledge Graph-based Customer-centric Deconstruction Assessment Model

2025· article· en· W4413863209 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputing in construction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTechnology and Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies
KeywordsComputer scienceDeconstruction (building)Knowledge managementData scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Demolition remains the dominant practice at the end-of-life stage, primarily due to its immediate economic advantages. Transitioning from demolition to deconstruction requires a shift in focus toward meeting customers' needs in the second-hand market. Therefore, the present study proposes a customer-centric deconstruction assessment model to enhance deconstruction planning. The research followed a three-stage methodology: (i) analyzing the attributes of existing deconstruction models; (ii) identifying the requirements of potential customers; and (iii) developing a knowledge graph model. The proposed model, which focused specifically on wood-based products, demonstrated its practical applicability by effectively matching products with suitable customers across five test scenarios.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.284 · 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