MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417185036 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.201036

Typological Study of the Building Heritage on a GIS Platform to Support Territorial Energy Planning Measures

2025· article· en· W4417185036 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Manuela Piga, Andrea Frattolillo, Giuseppe Desogus, Emanuela Quaquero, Francesca Poggi, Eusebio Loira

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnergy planningGeographic information systemEnergy (signal processing)Land-use planningCultural heritageSpatial planningUrban planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research was aimed at the implementation of an Urban Building Energy Model, based on an open GIS digital platform, acting as a support for the definition of energy efficiency strategies and recovery of the urban building heritage, specifically for medium-sized contexts with a Mediterranean climate. To guarantee its maximum replicability, the model involves the use of all data commonly available at regional/municipal level (topographic bases, Urban and Detailed Plans, ISTAT data, architectural constraints, etc.), focusing on the public and private buildings of the Municipality of Carbonia. The basic calculation methodology is the one regulated by the technical standards of the sector (UNI TS 11300 and UNI EN ISO 52016). The substantial differences compared to the UBEM models already present in the literature are both the inclusion of other parts of the energy systems (generation and distribution systems) and the use of internal comfort data obtainable from the monitoring system. Another intrinsic peculiarity of the model is its hierarchical structure coded in Python language, capable of displaying and comparing data coming from sensors with standard threshold values, allowing stakeholders and/or individual owners, at the level of the single building, a more informed choice of the advantages connected to the possible intervention 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning→Same topicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation→French-language works237,207→