Quantifying the Joint Contribution of Demountable Construction and Bioclimatic Design to a Building's Sustainability. Case Study: Beardon Eco-House
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study quantifies for the first time the joint contribution of demountable construction and bioclimatic design to the sustainable level of a building using 11 of the most representative and internationally used GBRS (Green Building Rating Systems). The scores of a demountable prefabricated building with bioclimatic design (Beardon house) were compared with those of a baseline with conventional design, in both cases using 11 of the most important GBRS. All GBRS have found that demountable construction and biocimatic design provides a higher level of sustainability. However, the resulting scores varied widely and only three GBRS clearly identified the obvious advantages of the combined contribution of demountable construction and bioclimatic design, while the rest value it very little, and four of them barely value it, despite its important environmental advantages. The results of this study have a high level of generalization since the different GBRS have few indicators in charge of evaluating the bioclimatic design and the demountable construction of buildings, and also very few indicators of evaluating their bioclimatic design, so the variations existing between different demountable systems and boclimatic strategies would not change the final score, or would do so very slightly. If the average score of the three GBRS that have scored the highest is taken into account (CEDES, DNGB, GS), the contribution of the demountable construction to the sustainable level of buildings is 12.34%; the contribution of the demountable construction is 20.28% and the joint contribution of the demountable construction and the bioclimatic design is 32.62%. Therefore, demountabile construction and bioclimatic design are two fundamental pillars when designing truly ecological and sustainable architecture.
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".