Bibliographic record
Abstract
The integrity of heritage places and the authenticity of the features that demonstrate their values are crucial to retention of significance in their conservation. This issue has been highlighted by the energy efficiency regulations in the new Building Code of Australia (BCA) of 2008 and their implications in terms of modifications that might be required to heritage buildings. In relation to sustainability there is more to consider than star ratings for operational energy efficiency. In America, Canada, and the United Kingdom environmental assessment systems are beginning to recognise the need to also assess social and cultural factors. Accurate measurement of the lifetime embodied energy of heritage buildings in relation to their operational consumption, and adequate recognition of this has been considered key to any assessment. As outlined in Heritage Victoria's Technical Leaflet Heritage Buildings and Energy Efficiency Regulations, embodied energy savings in the retained building fabric (in situ) may be considered as part of an alternative path to compliance. Recent research in the UK, Canada, and Australia suggests that avoidance of demolition waste is a major consideration. This paper explores the concept of a credit point system for heritage buildings in the context of their overall contribution to sustainability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.130 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.007 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".